July 2014

Justice declines to pursue allegations that CIA monitored Senate Intel staff

The Justice Department has decided not to pursue accusations that the Central Intelligence Agency spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee and allegations that committee staff slipped classified documents from a secure agency facility, McClatchy has confirmed. "The department carefully reviewed the matters referred to us and did not find sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal investigation," said Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr.

The news marks an apparent end to an extraordinary feud that spilled into the public forum in early March over the committee’s report on the agency’s post-9/11 enhanced interrogation program. The dispute included competing Justice Department referrals, with both the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee accusing the other side of criminal conduct throughout the course of the interrogation study. But, it seems that the details of both sides’ accusations will never be publicly aired, leaving simmering tensions and a battered relationship.

The Senate has advanced a bill to legalize cell phone unlocking

We're one step closer to a world where it's no longer a huge chore to take your existing cell phone to another network. The Senate Judiciary Committee just unanimously approved a bill that'd make it easier for you to "unlock" your cell phone so that you can port it to a different carrier -- much in the way you can bring your phone number with you.

"With today’s strong bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee, I hope the full Senate can soon take up this important legislation that supports consumer rights," said Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the committee chairman. The House has already passed a similar bill -- but unlike the House version the Senate's, notably, doesn't forbid people from unlocking lots of cell phones. That language is important when it comes to businesses that trade in second-hand devices; currently, you can only unlock your phone if you ask for your carrier's permission (and only at the end of your contract).

Musicians sing out: Walk back radio pledge

Music groups are pressuring Congress to back down from a pledge to keep AM/FM radio stations from paying musicians. “It’s hard enough to make a living as a musician -- and even harder when your own representatives in Congress won’t support your basic right to fair pay for your work,” new ads from music industry groups said.

The campaign from musicFirst, which includes music industry trade groups like the Recording Industry Association of America, the American Association of Independent Music and SoundExchange, asks lawmakers to remove their names from the Local Radio Freedom Act. The resolution, which would prohibit "any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge” on local AM/FM radio stations, is supported by a majority of the House.

MusicFirst is targeting signatories of that resolution, starting with Reps David Price (D-NC) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), through social media campaigns and newspaper ads in their districts. The ads call the resolution “an anti-musician resolution pushed by big corporate radio companies.”

As Congress -- especially the House Judiciary Committee -- looks to overhaul the music licensing rules under current copyright law, many have homed in on traditional AM/FM radio stations. While cable, satellite and Internet radio services pay royalty fees to musicians for the songs they play, AM/FM broadcasters do not pay musicians; they defend the practice by arguing they provide free promotion for musicians.

Authors Guild president to Amazon: No, thanks. We don’t want your money.

A Q&A with Authors Guild president Roxana Robinson.

The contract dispute between Amazon.com and Hachette Book Group has delayed the shipment of thousands of titles. The battle took another turn as Amazon reached out to Hachette authors with an offer to immediately begin offering the delayed books again and give its share of Hachette digital book sales to the authors for the duration of the dispute -- if the publisher would also forgo its share of the revenue.

What do authors think? Robinson isn't buying it, saying the offer is merely a tactic to bully the publisher into conceding to unfavorable terms. When presented with that argument, Amazon said that writers against the deal are "conflating the long-term structure of the industry with a short-term proposal designed to take authors...out of the line of fire."

“The Amazon letter didn't really take us out of the middle; it asked us to take sides against our publishers,” Robinson said. "It also seems to assume that what we really want is a short-term windfall, which is what we get if Amazon asked Hachette to give up revenues from e-books. But we want a healthy publishing ecosystem, a system of commerce in which we’re not trying to kill each other or drive each other out of business.” She added that the government should step in whenever a single company has too much power, it creates “a situation in which legal intervention would make sense.”

Cox Cable jumps on the SEC Network train

ESPN and Cox Communications have reached an agreement for carriage of the SEC Network on Cox when the multi-platform network launches on Aug 14.

The channel will be available to fans and followers of the SEC in all Cox markets. Subscribers will also have authenticated access to additional live events scheduled for the SEC Network's digital platform, with the ability to watch SEC Network content anytime, anywhere on their television, computer, tablet or mobile device.

The package includes programming available in regular and HD capable broadcasts and will be offered in the Louisiana markets as part of Cox's digital essential tier.

The SEC Network and its accompanying digital platform will air more than 1,000 live events in its first year, including at least 45 exclusive SEC football games, more than 100 men's basketball games, 60 women's basketball games, 75 baseball games, 50 softball games and events across all of the SEC's 21 sports.

Chattanooga wants feds to pre-empt broadband ban

Chattanooga (TN) officials plan to ask the federal government to allow it to expand the super-fast Internet service it offers city residents, a move that will likely unleash a torrent of lobbying and lawsuits by telecommunications companies that have spent years convincing states to curb city-run networks.

The city’s Electric Power Board, which operates a fiber-optic Internet service that competes with companies such as Comcast and Charter Communications, will petition the Federal Communications Commission in the next couple of months to pre-empt the Tennessee law that prohibits the city from expanding the network, Danna Bailey, vice president of corporate communications for the EPB, said.

“We continue to receive requests for broadband service from nearby communities to serve them,” Bailey said. “We believe cities and counties should have the right to choose the infrastructure they need to support their economies.” The move by Chattanooga will be a first salvo in an effort by municipalities and the FCC to reverse the laws in 20 states that ban or severely restrict local governments from offering Internet service to residents.

It's Not About "Can We?" It's About "Will We?"

[Commentary] Public comments are due regarding the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) proposed rules for network neutrality.

Much of the focus will be on arcane legalisms, the particulars of various court decisions, and the confounding twists and turns of FCC regulatory oversight (or lack thereof). This is all well and good, and based on more than a decade tracking such minutiae as a member of the FCC, I am confident that those of us favoring a real Open Internet will have much the better detailed arguments to put forward.

But it’s more -- much more -- than that.

[Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009]

Open Internet Panelists’ Ties to Industry Exposed

In response to the Capitol Hill briefing on network neutrality hosted by the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute and sponsored by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast on July 10:

“Some of the panelists have well-documented ties to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that stand to gain the most if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeds with its proposed rules for a paid fast lane. Indeed, one panelist, my friend, Martin Chavez, who spoke on the panel on behalf of the Hispanic Telecommunications and Technology Partnership (HTTP), is both a Senior Advisor to HTTP and a Consultant at the Ibarra Strategy Group, a lobbying firm that counts Verizon amongst its clientele. Let me be very clear – HTTP is nothing more than an industry front-group that is at best misinformed and at worst intentionally distorting facts as it actively opposes efforts to better serve the communications needs of Latinos.”

Communications Policy in Transition: Mergers, Net Neutrality, and the Digital Divide

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission announced the team that will be reviewing the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger, signifying the agency’s readiness to begin the formal review process of the merger.

There is a lot going on at the FCC these days, and this merger is but one point in an array of important policy decisions before the Commission. Communications policy is at a moment of transition in the United States. A successful merger between Comcast and TWC would give one company nearly half the national market of truly high-speed broadband connections, threatening to move us away from the broadband ecosystem we need. As part of the merger review process, the companies must demonstrate that the transaction will not produce competitive harms and will affirmatively be in the public interest.

The first question with which the FCC must contend is the potential for competitive harms evident in the transaction. Competition in the broadband marketplace is notably limited. The merger may also have effects on the issue of network neutrality, the idea that ISPs should not be able to block or discriminate based on the content or type of traffic online. These potential harms to competition and the open Internet lead us in the wrong direction for the communications policy we need.

In front of the FCC right now are two momentous decisions that will have a significant effect on the future of the Internet. The FCC should do the right thing for the public’s interest and reject the merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The FCC must also enact strong net neutrality rules to encourage innovation in the broadband market and ensure a robust, free, and open Internet.

What Countries Will Shape the Future of the Internet?

[Commentary] In the future, who -- or what -- will govern the Internet? The answer to that question could also shed light on one of the biggest foreign policy questions of the decade: As power is shifting among states and diffusing, what is the future of the world order?

That first question was in the spotlight in 2012, right around the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. It was the first time in nearly a decade that the topic of Internet governance attracted major international media attention.

The conference became the latest showdown of the ongoing struggle over the future of the Internet with some countries led by Russia and China seeking greater governmental control and others supporting an Internet governance model driven by civil society, the private sector, and governments. Caught in the middle are the “swing states”-- countries that have not decided which vision for the future of the Internet they will support. Yet, the outcome of this debate ultimately depends on these states -- the ones that have not yet firmly staked out a position and who represent a significant share of the world’s population and economy. While it is not surprising to find India, Brazil, and South Africa among the key 30 swing states, some of our findings raise interesting questions.

Ultimately, this Internet governance debate is embedded in the larger systemic shift -- the reshuffling of the world order. Take Brazil and India, two of the countries that have attracted greater attention during this debate not only with regard to the future of the Internet but the future of the international order. Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, Ghana, and Malaysia also are on our list and deserve more attention. Their behavior shapes what norms and institutions will govern our lives in the future, including finance, post-2015 development goals, international security -- and the future of the Internet.

Benton

Search