May 2014

INTERNET/BROADBAND

INTERNET ESSENTIALS
[SOURCE: Roosevelt Institute, AUTHOR: ]
Comcast’s highly publicized Internet Essentials program is more effective as a customer acquisition program for Comcast than anything else. While the program may sound like a noble effort to combat the digital divide, it is deeply flawed in practice. Its so-called high-speed connections are painfully slow: 3Mbps downstream and 768Kbps upstream. This is equivalent to Comcast’s bottom-tier service, normally billed at $39.95, and is slower than 89 percent of cable connections in the U.S. These connections may not even be fast enough for modern web applications, especially if multiple users in the house are sharing the same connection at the same time. (The Internet Essentials program originally offered only 1.5Mbps, but Comcast raised the speed cap in the second year in response to criticism and a protest outside of Comcast’s headquarters.) The program is also ineffective because it is not serving enough low-income households. Comcast estimates that 2.6 million households are eligible for Internet Essentials. Of that 2.6 million, the program serves only 150,000 households (5.8 percent of those eligible). In the Philadelphia region, the heart of “Comcast Country” and the location of Comcast’s corporate headquarters, only 3,250 families are participating (3.3 percent of those eligible). Even the number of eligible households is extraordinarily low, as the limits to participation noted above allow Comcast to capture new customers without cannibalizing its existing low-income subscriber base. Comcast's approach provides no relief to families on a tight budget that have already purchased a plan. For low-income NLSP families (at or below 130 percent of the poverty rate), affording the “market” rate for these packages can be quite challenging.
benton.org/node/182870 | Roosevelt Institute
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

LEGISLATORS SEEK USF SUPPORT FOR BROADBAND-ONLY SUBS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Nearly 50 senators from both parties have called on the Federal Communications Commission to reform the Universal Service Fund so that it supports broadband-only service in rural areas. In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the 44 legislators, led by Sen John Thune (R-SD), ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and Sen Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said that if the FCC does not make the change, it would lead to less choice and support for rural consumers. The FCC is migrating USF support from traditional telephone to broadband as part of its revamp of USF, and the senators point to that USF goal of increasing broadband adoption. Currently, they point out, a smaller, rate-of-return carrier is eligible for support if a rural consumer buys phone service, whether or not they take broadband, but carriers don't get USF money for broadband, only rural subs.
benton.org/node/182845 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE CASE FOR REBOOTING THE NETWORK NEUTRALITY DEBATE
[SOURCE: The Atlantic, AUTHOR: Barbara Van Schewick]
[Commentary] The Internet uproar about network neutrality tends to come in waves. Right now we’re riding the crest of one. In the two weeks since Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal for new net neutrality rules became public, the Internet has erupted in protest. The legal vacuum created by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit threatens the Internet that we know and love. It threatens the start-up economy. It threatens American leadership in the Internet space. That is a huge problem, and we need to fix it. But simply adopting rules that are network neutrality in name only is not enough. Different rules -- like a ban on access fees versus a ban on discriminatory or exclusive access fees -- will result in vastly different environments for the use of the network and in very different application innovation ecosystems. As we -- the public, policy makers, and regulators -- think through the choice between limited network neutrality regulation under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act and more comprehensive network neutrality rules under Title II of the Communications Act, we need to ask the right questions and ask them in the right order:
What kind of rules do we need to protect users and innovators against the threat of blocking and discrimination?
How will access fees affect the environment for application innovation and free speech, and how does this affect what kind of rules we need?
And, finally, which foundation -- Section 706 or Title II -- will allow us to adopt these rules?
The answers are clear.
First, we need strong network neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, discrimination against specific applications or classes of applications, and access fees – rules that apply equally to the fixed and mobile Internet.
Second, we need rules that provide certainty to innovators, investors, and ISPs alike. Innovators and their investors need to know that they won’t be discriminated against and that ISPs cannot create new barriers to innovation by charging access fees.
Third, start-ups are small and don’t have many resources, let alone a legal team. So we need rules that can be enforced through simple, straightforward legal processes, not rules that tilt the playing field in favor of large, established companies that can pay armies of lawyers and expert witnesses and afford long, costly proceedings at the FCC.
Fourth, we need rules that give ISPs flexibility to realize their legitimate goals such as network management, price discrimination, or product differentiation, albeit through means that do not distort competition, harm application innovation, or violate user choice.
Fifth, we need rules that do not overly constrain the evolution of the Internet infrastructure and keep the costs of regulation low. [van Schewick is a professor at Stanford Law School and the director of the school's Center for Internet and Society]
benton.org/node/182860 | Atlantic, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

FCC MUST SET STRONG NET NEUTRALITY RULES TO PROTECT INNOVATION
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Rep Doris Matsui (D-CA)]
[Commentary] It is imperative that all Americans have access to a truly free and open Internet. I strongly support network neutrality. Network neutrality is about preserving a free and open Internet ecosystem, where consumers can access new products and ideas, and have an open market for new innovations. There should be no “gatekeepers,” or toll roads. More important, it’s about the idea that anyone can use the Internet to make his or her voice heard. Allowing deals for prioritization could easily be used to favor some content at the expense of others and be used as a barrier to entry for a small startup without the resources to buy access to an Internet fast lane. I agree that we need open Internet rules that encourage companies to compete for customers without striking special deals. I am hopeful the FCC will propose a set of rules that will truly preserve an open and free Internet that spurs innovation and protects consumers. All Americans that care about the future of the open Internet should share their views with the FCC. The agency needs to hear from you about why the Internet must remain a platform for innovation and free expression.
benton.org/node/182827 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

FCC’S GRAB FOR NEW REGULATORY POWER COULD GO BEYOND BROADBAND PROVIDERS
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly]
[Commentary] Internet application and content companies, what some refer to as “edge providers,” are increasingly concerned by the Federal Communications Commission’s newfound ability to regulate the Internet, and rightfully so. For years, edge providers -- Pandora, Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, WhatsApp, to name just a few -- have flourished from the government’s hands-off approach to the Internet. Both Republicans and Democrats championed a structure that allowed the “application layer” of Internet architecture to be free from government intervention, apart from occasional Federal Trade Commission activity. That is now subject to change. A very real threat is that edge providers could fall within the reach of the FCC’s newly invented authority to regulate the Internet under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently announced the Commission will seek comment on proposed new net neutrality rules that will “meet the court’s test.” His focus may be on broadband providers, but edge providers shouldn’t be lulled into complacency. The notion of preserving an “open Internet” is so vague that any rules meant to accomplish that goal could unintentionally impact edge providers’ business models. The only intellectually honest conclusion for net neutrality supporters is to extend the burden to everyone: broadband providers and edge providers. The only way to achieve that seems to be creative use of Section 706. With every Internet site, service and application vulnerable to Internet security threats, these could readily come under the purview of the FCC.
benton.org/node/182826 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

POLKA: VIACOM'S 'RETALIATORY' WEB MOVE RAISES OPENNESS ISSUES
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
American Cable Association President Matt Polka says Viacom's denial of access to its websites by broadband Internet subscribers of Cable One and others is a violation of Internet openness that should raise warning flags in Washington. Cable One dropped 15 cable networks April 1, and Viacom then decided that its programming would "no longer be available to Cable One customers in any form." Polka said that broadband Internet customers of both Cable One and Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico are being denied access to Viacom websites, including customers who have cut the cord on traditional video. “Viacom’s actions are a flagrant attack on Internet openness and a textbook replay of the vengeful action CBS took against Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks broadband customers during their well-documented retransmission consent dispute last August," said Polka. “All who care about ensuring access to content on the Internet should be outraged that Viacom is selectively blocking access to its public websites by broadband Internet subscribers served by smaller cable companies."
benton.org/node/182846 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BEYOND NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Vox, AUTHOR: Timothy Lee]
When Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in his Harvard dorm room, he didn’t need to ask Comcast, Verizon, or other Internet service providers to add Facebook to their networks. He also didn’t have to pay these companies extra fees to ensure that Facebook would work as well as the websites of established companies. As soon as he created the Facebook website, it was automatically available from any Internet-connected computer in the world. This aspect of the Internet is network neutrality. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler's decision to water down network neutrality regulations isn't even the biggest threat to the open Internet right now. The Internet itself is changing in ways that threatens to make the conventional net neutrality debate almost irrelevant. Netflix’s deal to pay first Comcast then Verizon for private connections was signed only under protest. Netflix charged that it had been coerced to pay "tolls" just to deliver content to their own customers. That might sound like a net neutrality violation, but the practice doesn't actually run afoul of the network neutrality rules advocates have been pushing for the last decade. Those rules ban "fast lanes" for content that arrives over the Internet backbone, the shared information super highway that carries the bulk of the Internet traffic today. Conventional network neutrality rules don't regulate this kind of deal. If the only way to get excellent service on America's largest broadband networks is to negotiate a private connection directly to those networks, smaller companies with less cash and fewer lawyers are going to be at a competitive disadvantage. In other words, those public transit links that were providing Netflix with subpar service could become the de facto slow lanes on Comcast's network, while private, direct connections could become the fast lane. Neither the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, which the courts struck down earlier in 2014, nor FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's new proposal, would govern this kind of interconnection dispute. The bottom line is that network neutrality advocates will need to broaden their thinking to respond effectively to the Internet's changing structure. Merely banning fast lanes isn't going to accomplish much if the largest ISPs are allowed to sell new private roads.
benton.org/node/182813 | Vox
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMCAST IS DESTROYING THE PRINCIPLE THAT MAKES A COMPETITIVE INTERNET POSSIBLE
[SOURCE: Vox, AUTHOR: Timothy Lee]
[Commentary] People who love the Internet's lack of regulation have its bill-and-keep structure to thank. Unlike the telephone industry, which had a sender-pays model (the customer who dials the phone pays for the call; the payment goes to the long-distance company of the customer's choice; the long-distance company, in turn, makes a payment to the local phone company that operates the other end of the connection), in the bill-and-keep Internet, companies at each "end" of a connection bill their own customers -- whether that customer is a big web company like Google, or a an average household. Neither end pays the other for interconnection. Instead, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) at each end is responsible for ensuring that its traffic can reach the ISP at the other end. This is part of the service that the ISP sells to its customers, a guarantee that traffic will get where you want it to go. The terminating monopoly problem occurs when a company at the end of a network not only charges its own customers for their connection, but charges companies in the middle of the network an extra premium to be able to reach its customers. In a bill-and-keep regime, the money always flows in the other direction -- from customers to ISPs to transit companies. And because the market for transit is highly competitive, there's no need for government regulation of transit fees. It's an ordinary market where if a transit company tries to charge too much, ISPs will switch to another company. By solving the terminating monopoly problem, bill-and-keep makes possible a robust and competitive market for Internet connectivity that requires minimal government oversight. Since 2010, Comcast has engaged in a campaign to undermine the bill-and-keep system. In a letter to the FCC defending its handling of a pay dispute with Level 3 for Netflix content delivery, Comcast argued that the two companies' "traffic ratio" -- the ratio between the traffic Comcast was sending Level 3 and the traffic Level 3 was sending Comcast -- had been thrown out of balance by the growth of Netflix streaming. Comcast portrayed it as a standard industry practice for the network that sends a disproportionate amount of traffic to pay the receiving network for the costs of carrying the traffic. The traffic ratio rule Comcast advocated with Level 3 in 2010 was a variation on the sender-pays rule. It will create the same kind of terminating monopoly problem that plagued the long distance telephone market. But that might not seem like a bad thing if you own the monopoly.
benton.org/node/182812 | Vox
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TAXING THE WEB
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: John McKinnon]
Millions of Americans could be threatened with new state taxes on their Internet access this fall, as Congress struggles with how to extend an expiring moratorium on such levies. The 15-year-old Internet Tax Freedom Act prevents most states and local governments from taxing access. The moratorium enjoys widespread bipartisan support in Congress. The tax reprieve, however, is set to expire on Nov. 1, and so far, lawmakers have taken few concrete steps to re-enact it as they debate whether to combine it with a separate, more controversial bill. That measure would allow states to collect sales tax from out-of-state online merchants. Proponents hope that combining the two bills will increase pressure on Congress to negotiate a compromise on the long-delayed online sales-tax legislation.
benton.org/node/182872 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE REFLECTS ON NETMUNDIAL
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: Bartees Cox]
As Public Knowledge reflects upon the recent NETmundial multi-stakeholder meeting in Brazil, it is clear that for all its faults, the meeting in Sao Paulo was a turning point for Internet governance and human rights in the digital environment. For the first time in such a meeting, all the stakeholders were not only “at the table” but, to some extent, drivers of the agenda, drafting, and outcomes. The process itself was open to the Internet, whether it was for scathing criticism or simply curious engagement via video streaming.
benton.org/node/182844 | Public Knowledge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS
[SOURCE: New America Foundation, AUTHOR: Benjamin Lennett, Patrick Lucey, Joanne Hovis, Andrew Afflerbach]
More and more local governments across the US are building broadband infrastructure to provide high speed Internet access to better enable their schools, businesses and citizens to compete in today's digital economy. This report, from New America’s Open Technology Institute (OTI) and CTC Technology & Energy, is intended to serve as a primer for local government and community leaders on different approaches to public broadband networks. The report addresses broadband technologies, network business models, and the considerable benefits beyond the balance sheet that public networks can provide to communities. “For nearly two decades, hundreds of innovative local governments have built and operated fiber optic networks to meet internal government needs and the needs of the public,” said Joanne Hovis, President of CTC Technology & Energy [and member Benton Foundation Board of Directors]. “This report offers a survey of some of the strategies they have developed, with background about technology, business planning, risks, and benefits. This report's goal is to provide sufficient guidance that communities can begin to develop their own approaches to meeting local needs.”
benton.org/node/182838 | New America Foundation
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SMART POLICIES TO UPGRADE THE INTERNET
[SOURCE: Brookings, AUTHOR: Hillary Schaub]
Policy recommendations to support the IP Transition:
Government leaders need to speed up lengthy rulemaking procedures.
Regulators need to be open to new business models and applications with the potential to improve consumer communications and commerce.
During the IP Transition, a critical priority is to protect vulnerable populations. To ensure the IP Transition has a soft landing, the elderly, disabled, and those residing in rural areas must be provided the same or better service than they are currently receiving.
Increase the number of experiments to gauge the impact of these transitions, to assess costs and benefits. Using the information from these trials to enact data-driven regulation. Regulations can use data to match the needs and responsibilities of the public sector with the innovation capacity of the private sector.
With the insatiable demand for larger amounts and faster content delivery, we need to build a next generation digital infrastructure. This new infrastructure should support innovation in commerce, health care, education, transportation, and energy.
Barriers to Innovation:
Reskilling current workers for new technologies is critical for future success. Current methods include partnering with local universities and using MOOCs to reskill workers for new technologies, but transforming a mathematics expert into a big data scientist is a difficult and timely process.
The telecommunications industry needs more spectrum.
Adaptation is vital to the ever evolving telecom industry. Some television networks have successfully transformed from a content creator to a content distributor.
There is tremendous competition to hire the qualified tech engineers. The STEM pipeline must be improved.
benton.org/node/182817 | Brookings
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

A THOUSAND CUTS AND THE LAST MILE PROBLEM
[SOURCE: Digitopoly, AUTHOR: Joshua Gans]
[Commentary] At the heart of the problem with competition on the Internet and how this might impact on consumer choice is the ‘last mile problem.’ The issue is that there is a single ‘pipe’ running into dwellings and premises. To have more than one is not cost effective. And that ‘pipe’ will always be owned by someone and that someone will have monopoly access to the consumer as a result. So what are the options for the US to deal with the last mile?
Regulated prices: it could adopt regulated pricing as in other countries and open up access.
Privatization: the essential problem with the last mile is that there will always be a last mile because there is always a customer at the edge of a network. The problem at the moment is that the customer is a bottleneck and then the owner of the last mile to the customer is a second, sequential bottleneck. Essentially, the double monopoly problem is built into this structure.
Municipal broadband: saving the customer owning the last mile, individual localities could set up their own networks to provide a second option against incumbent firms. This is the ‘thousand cuts approach.’ Basically, what we have in broadband is a number of monopolies equal to the number of customers (dwellings/premises). The fight is over each one individually. One approach would be for a large national competitor to emerge and do this everywhere. But what would make more economic sense is that there were local solutions based on local needs.
benton.org/node/182811 | Digitopoly
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SPECTRUM/WIRELESS

REMARKS OF FCC COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL AT “MOVING WI-FI FORWARD”
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel]
It is high time we give unlicensed spectrum -- airwaves open to all under technical rules -- its due. Because it is an essential part of the wireless ecosystem, a critical part of wireless service, and an important input into the modern economy. In fact, the economic impact of unlicensed spectrum has been estimated at $140 billion annually. By any measure that is a lot. So I think it is time for an unlicensed spectrum game plan. It should no longer be an afterthought in our spectrum policy. It deserves attention upfront, in policy prime time. An unlicensed game plan takes high-band, mid-band, and low-band spectrum. High-band spectrum provides the large channels necessary for high-definition video at short distances—think streaming video from your laptop to your television. Mid-band spectrum sacrifices some of that throughput, but gives you further reach. Low-band spectrum can go far and wide, and as a result is ideal for larger-scale Wi-Fi deployments and machine-to-machine communications. To build powerful wireless communications systems, you need a playbook that includes all three.
benton.org/node/182856 | Federal Communications Commission | The Hill
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

ISSA: DON’T SELL OFF AIRWAVES FOR SHORT-TERM GAINS
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Julian Hattem]
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said he is tired of selling off public airwaves only to fund a pork-barrel project or make a tiny dent in the deficit. Selling off chunks of the spectrum to make a little short-term cash, he said, would be like selling off pieces of the Mississippi River or the Saint Lawrence Seaway. “Public assets for the public good have never been before sold in the way that we deal with spectrum,” he said at a conference pushing for more unlicensed spectrum, which allows Wi-Fi systems and devices like garage door openers to operate. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to buy back chunks of the airwaves currently owned by broadcasters and resell them to wireless companies, which need the spectrum to offer high-speed Web access for consumers’ phones and tablets. Most of the airwaves will be allocated for specific companies, but the FCC will reserve some for unlicensed use to support Wi-Fi and other services. Just how much of the spectrum is unlicensed depends on how much broadcasters sell back to the government.
benton.org/node/182836 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

HOW TO IMPROVE FEDERAL SPECTRUM SYSTEMS
[SOURCE: American Enterprise Institute, AUTHOR: Richard Bennett]
[Commentary] I’m developing the idea of creating a Federal Spectrum Service, a government chartered for-profit corporation, to serve as the owner of all federal spectrum. The FSS would control all federal spectrum use and manage it according to a ten-year plan for reducing the federal spectrum footprint in two stages. In the first stage, the FSS would be required to reduce the federal spectrum footprint by 50%, and in the second stage it would be required to reduce it by 50% once again. The spectrum thus liberated would be auctioned for public use. Once this mission is accomplished, the FSS would cease to exist unless Congress explicitly re-authorized it to continue in some form. The FSS would have the power to meet this mandate, as it would assume immediate ownership and control of all federal systems that use spectrum directly, either as transmitters or receivers. Therefore, the FSS would be able to replace current systems with new ones that would use spectrum more efficiently and to auction the spectrum it frees up for public uses. As a single entity with control of federal spectrum use, the FSS would not be affected by agency infighting and the fragmentation of spectrum expertise across the panoply of agencies. If the FSS finds the PCAST Report’s sharing recommendations sensible, it would be able to test them by having agencies share spectrum with each other. While all of the liberated spectrum would be auctioned, it wouldn’t all necessarily go to the highest bidder. The proceeds from auctioning federal spectrum would easily pay for the equipment upgrades that would make even more spectrum available.
benton.org/node/182821 | American Enterprise Institute
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SPRINT CEO SAYS STRONG NO. 3 NEEDED AMID PRICE WARS
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Scott Moritz]
Sprint Chief Executive Officer Dan Hesse said the wireless price wars aren’t sustainable and show the need for a bigger No. 3 competitor in the US. “A stronger No. 3 will get one and two to react more aggressively so everybody benefits,” Hesse said in an interview with Erik Schatzker and Stephanie Ruhle on Bloomberg Television. “If you are smaller, the big two do not react as aggressively.” Both Sprint and T-Mobile posted net losses in the first quarter. “T-Mobile and Sprint have to invest more per customer in their network,” Hesse said. “Think of a nationwide network, it largely affects costs. It is like a jumbo jet. AT&T and Verizon, because of their size, can put more customers on that, and divide it among more customers and can spend more money on advertising.”
benton.org/node/182863 | Bloomberg
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION

STELA COMPROMISE
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Kate Tummarello]
The leadership of the House Commerce Committee has reached a bipartisan agreement on an upcoming satellite television bill. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) -- chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications -- said that he and subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo (D-CA) have reached an agreement on the Republican bill to reauthorize a satellite television bill. That bill -- the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) -- governs the satellite television market, and parts of it are set to expire at the end of the year. Earlier this year, House Commerce Republicans introduced a bill to reauthorize STELA and make other tweaks to the video marketplace -- including a provision that would have prevented the Federal Communications Commission from taking planned action to cut down on collusion between broadcasters. Under the bipartisan compromise bill announced Tuesday to be considered at a markup beginning May 7, broadcasters will have more time to unwind the business deals banned by the FCC in March.
benton.org/node/182871 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SINCLAIR-COHERENT PLAN ALTERNATIVE TO ATSC 3.0
[SOURCE: TVNewsCheck, AUTHOR: Phil Kurz]
Sinclair Broadcast Group is moving forward with its plan to develop an alternative "next-generation" TV broadcast standard to the one that the Advanced Television Systems Committee is working on. Tommy Eng, president of ONE Media, a joint venture between Sinclair Broadcast Group and Coherent Logix, announced in a press release that the Next Generation Broadcast Platform would be a "converged media platform that extends 3GPP LTE standards to incorporate reception from existing tall-tower TV antennas, opening up new business opportunities for broadcasters and overcoming existing mobile DTV reception limitations.” During a telephone interview, Mark Aitken, VP, advanced technology, Sinclair Broadcast Group, said ATSC is not up to the task for developing the standard that broadcasters need. “ATSC does not offer a place for how we as an industry can work to shape regulation and work with all of the government bodies to make a next-generation system happen," he said.
benton.org/node/182868 | TVNewsCheck
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CHANGING CHANNELS: AMERICANS VIEW JUST 17 CHANNELS DESPITE RECORD NUMBER TO CHOOSE FROM
[SOURCE: Nielsen, AUTHOR: Press release]
According to Nielsen’s forthcoming Advertising & Audiences Report, the average US TV home now receives 189 TV channels -- a record high and significant jump since 2008, when the average home received 129 channels. Despite this increase, however, consumers have consistently tuned in to an average of just 17 channels. This data is significant in that it substantiates the notion that more content does not necessarily equate to more channel consumption. And that means quality is imperative -- for both content creators and advertisers. So the best way to reach consumers in a world with myriad options is to be the best option.
benton.org/node/182831 | Nielsen
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA

IT’S CAMPAIGN SEASON! TIME TO START SEARCHING FOR HIDDEN SPENDING IN FCC FILES
[SOURCE: Columbia Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Susannah Nesmith]
[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission records are a potential treasure trove of near real-time political spending data -- though they are difficult to dig into. They can only be searched by television station, and the reports the stations file are only kept as PDFs, so the numbers within them can’t be easily crunched. And for the moment, the FCC database only includes records from the top four stations in the top 50 markets; beginning in July, all broadcast stations will be required to upload their records to the FCC’s site. The discrepancy between what was filed with the FEC and what was filed with the FCC doesn’t necessarily mean any law was broken. The filing requirements at the two agencies are different. In addition to being cumbersome, the FCC data isn’t always complete for federal races either, observers say. But it’s always worth checking. And for small markets, this could be a treasure trove once all stations have to upload their reports. That’s where it would be easy for a smaller news outlet to cull through the FCC filings and find out what’s going on in their media market.
benton.org/node/182815 | Columbia Journalism Review
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

HEALTH

SCREEN BILL OF HEALTH?
[SOURCE: Federal Trade Commission, AUTHOR: Lesley Fair]
The Federal Trade Commission would like to hear your health questions -- your questions about consumer generated and controlled health data, that is. That’s the topic of an FTC seminar on May 7, 2014, and you’re invited to participate. The seminar -- part of the FTC’s spring privacy series – will examine how consumers are taking a more active role in managing and generating their own health data through websites, devices, apps, etc. What are the potential benefits and privacy implications of these new technologies?
benton.org/node/182847 | Federal Trade Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SECURITY/PRIVACY

PRIVACY GROUPS MULL ACTION AFTER FACEBOOK DEAL WITH FITNESS APP
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Kate Tummarello]
Privacy groups are considering asking the federal government to intervene in Facebook’s recent purchase of fitness app Moves. The Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy both said that they are considering asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Facebook’s acquisition of Moves. The conversations of whether to ask for FTC in the acquisition deal come after Moves changed its privacy policy recently to permit sharing users’ data with Facebook. The app’s privacy policy pledged not to share its users’ information with third parties, according to The Wall Street Journal. Less than two weeks after Moves announced it was being acquired by Facebook -- the app updated its privacy policy to permit sharing with Facebook. The new policy says the company “may share information, including personally identifying information, with our Affiliates (companies that are part of our corporate groups of companies, including but not limited to Facebook) to help provide, understand, and improve our Services.” A Facebook spokeswoman said that Moves user data will not be integrated into Facebook's profiles of users. Instead, the company will use the data to to support the app, the spokeswoman said. Privacy advocates expressed concerns about the updated policy. “The fact that they’ve changed their privacy policy so quickly is disappointing” and “deserves some investigation,” Julia Horwitz, consumer protection counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said. Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said he is “exploring FTC regulatory action.”
benton.org/node/182864 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMPANY NEWS

ALIBABA IPO MAY UNLEASH GLOBAL FIGHT OVER USERS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Farhad Manjoo]
The largest technology stock offering in history is looming, but few in Silicon Valley seem to care. The initial public offering expected soon in the United States by Alibaba Group Holding, China’s largest e-commerce company, could surpass the amount raised in the initial public offering (IPO) of Facebook. It would not even be surprising if it surpassed the combined amounts raised in the IPO’s of Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, AOL and Yahoo. But unlike the flurry of attention that accompanies high-profile floats by American tech stars, Alibaba’s stock offering has barely registered among the valley’s tech set. San Francisco’s artisanal toast bars have not been abuzz with commentary on Jack Ma, Alibaba’s chairman, and Palo Alto’s Tesla dealerships aren’t bracing for a surge in new buyers. In interviews, a few Silicon Valley investors said they didn’t expect the offering to be a big deal in the markets they follow, though they declined to speak on the record about their apathy. The issue isn’t that the valley is ignorant of the rise of Chinese Internet giants. It’s more that American tech firms have long been spurned and surprised by China’s tech market, and many here aren’t sure how to gauge the ambitions of the giants like Alibaba now bent on crossing the Pacific.
benton.org/node/182810 | New York Times | Revere Digital
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

RIVAL NSA BILLS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Charlie Savage]
Senior members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees have agreed on similar but rival bills that would restrict the National Security Agency’s ability to collect Americans’ phone call data in bulk. The Judiciary Committee is expected to markup and pass a compromise version of a bill sponsored by Rep James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). It has the support of several top lawmakers of both parties on that panel. The Intelligence Committee is expected to mark up and pass a similar bill, staffers said. Both bills would curtail the government’s ability to collect bulk records about Americans. In particular, the bills are aimed at ending the NSA program that systematically gathers logs about Americans’ phone calls and stores them for at least five years. Instead, they would authorize a system in which the bulk records would stay with the phone companies, and the government could obtain records of callers up to two links from a suspect. Neither bill would require phone companies to hold onto such records longer than they normally would do -- in the case of landline phone records, up to 18 months. President Barack Obama has endorsed the broad outlines of such a plan. Still, some important differences remain.
benton.org/node/182874 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NSA E-MAILS PURPORT TO SHOW A ‘CLOSE’ RELATIONSHIP WITH GOOGLE. MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung]
In the summer of 2012, about a year before former contractor Edward Snowden revealed surprising new information about the extent of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, the head of the spy agency reportedly traded e-mails with top Google execs 0n cyber-security issues. Then-NSA director Gen Keith Alexander told Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt that he was organizing a meeting of tech CEOs in Silicon Valley for Aug 8, 2012, and he extended an invitation to Google, according to the e-mails, which were obtained by Al Jazeera America. Earlier that year, Alexander had invited Google co-founder Sergey Brin to a similar event and thanked him for "contributions" from other top Googlers, such as Vint Cerf, who is credited with developing the Internet. The e-mails offer a rare look at the communications between Google and the NSA. It's a relationship that has been prickly lately, given Snowden's disclosures. But the two entities have worked closely in the past on developing defenses against cyber-attack, according to Al Jazeera America.
benton.org/node/182865 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

RUSSIA’S BLOGGERS LAW
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Neil MacFarquhar]
Russia has taken another major step toward restricting its once freewheeling Internet, as President Vladimir V. Putin quietly signed a new law requiring popular online voices to register with the government, a measure that lawyers, Internet pioneers and political activists said would give the government a much wider ability to track who said what online. Putin’s action, just weeks after he disparaged the Internet as “a special C.I.A. project,” borrowed a page from the restrictive Internet playbooks of many governments around the world that have been steadily smothering online freedoms they once tolerated. The idea that the Internet was at best controlled anarchy and beyond any one nation’s control is fading globally amid determined attempts by more and more governments to tame the web. If innovations like Twitter were hailed as recently as the Arab uprisings as the new public square, governments like those in China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and now Russia are making it clear that they can deploy their tanks on virtual squares, too.
benton.org/node/182875 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

May 2014

4 Countries That Are Leaving Silicon Valley In Their Tracks

Heartbleed -- the fallout Part 2

How Anybody Can Measure Your Computer's Wi-Fi Fingerprint

Talk of an Internet Fast Lane Is Already Hurting Some Startups

Within its fiberhoods, Google rules the roost

Can Netflix kill cable TV if it's part of it?

Uh oh, newspapers are looking like attractive investments again

Op-ed

No Fast Lanes For The Few

May 7, 2014 (Comcast Profits from the Poor)

Russia Quietly Tightens Reins on Web With ‘Bloggers Law’