October 2014

Sun-Times reporter resigns in dispute with investor turned candidate for governor

Chicago Sun-Times reporter Dave McKinney has resigned saying, "I'm faced with a difficult decision due to the disturbing developments I've experienced in the last two weeks that cannot be reconciled with this newspaper's storied commitment to journalism." The resignation follows news that he'd been sidelined for five days after complaints from the campaign of GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner about one of McKinney's stories.

Sun-Times Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Jim Kirk said he regretted McKinney's resignation, but that he calls the shots at his newspaper. "It is with reluctance that I accept Dave McKinney's resignation," Kirk said. "As recently as this Monday on our Op/Ed page, I stated that Dave is among the best in our profession. I meant it then and I mean it now. The pause we took last week was to ensure there were no conflicts of interest and was taken simply to protect Dave McKinney, the Sun-Times and its readers as we were under attack in a heated political campaign. We came to the right result, found the political attacks against us to be false and we stand by our reporting, our journalists and this great newspaper. I disagree with Dave's questioning the integrity of this newspaper and my role as editor and publisher. I call the shots. While I've been here, our ownership and management have never quashed a story and they have always respected the journalistic integrity of this paper."

The Internet Is Not The Enemy

[Commentary] Global efforts to stop the Islamic State should not come at the expense of online freedom. Let the world see the depravity of their ideology. The threat posed by online recruitment by terrorist groups is real, but the Internet itself is not the problem. By treating the symptom with sweeping measures and giving a pass to the use of the Security Council is potentially threatening the free and open Internet.

[York is the Director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation]

Setting the Chicken Little ISPs Straight

[Commentary] The opponents of a truly Open Internet are spending millions of dollars to transform the debate over what should be a no-brainer regulatory finding into something analogous to dropping a hydrogen bomb. The big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would have us believe that Title II net neutrality is regulatory strangulation, government-by-dictatorship, wholesale infringement of their First Amendment rights, and on and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Listening to the rants and wails of Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T over net neutrality reminds me of Chicken Little, Henny Penny, and Ducky Lucky rushing to warn their friends of impending doom. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling,” they clucked and quacked; the world is ending. But the sky wasn’t falling; it was just a tiny acorn bouncing harmlessly off Chicken Little’s head. ‘Twas quite the ruckus they raised; it just wasn’t reality. The net neutrality decision facing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is much less dramatic than “The Sky is Falling ISP Threesome” endlessly contend.

Are the political winds shifting in favor of net neutrality?

The unknown factor that keeps advocates of network neutrality up at night is whether our political leaders will have the spine to resist the principle's enemies -- the Comcasts and Verizons of the world, who wish to profiteer from charging website providers extra for preferential access to your home and business. A few glimmers of hope have emerged in recent days. Combined with an analysis showing that the overwhelming majority of comments flowing in to the Federal Communications Commission favor an "open Internet" -- that is, net neutrality -- statements by President Barack Obama and possible presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested that the principle is gathering political weight. But advocates shouldn't declare victory yet. This is Washington, after all, where money talks. And the would-be tollkeepers on the information superhighway already are very, very rich.

Rep Eshoo: Reclassify broadband for network neutrality

Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA) called on the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify broadband Internet service so new network neutrality rules can stand up to legal challenges while still banning “fast lanes.”

In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, she advised the commission to reclassify broadband as a "telecommunications service," but use restraint when enforcing all the provisions that come with the new classification. She said a "light touch" would be necessary when enforcing the new classification under Title II of the Communications Act. Applying all the rules under the new authority is "not necessary to ensure the FCC retains oversight of broadband for net neutrality, consumer protection and universal service goals."

The right wasn't always opposed to regulations protecting online innovation

To understand today's network neutrality debate, it is important to understand the history of how of the government has regulated the telecom industry.

Beginning in the 1970s, the federal government deregulated the industry, paving the way for the modern internet. But when people talked about deregulation back in the 1970s, they meant something different from the concept liberals hate -- and conservatives love -- today. This history has important implications for the modern network neutrality debate. Today, most conservatives portray any regulation of incumbent phone and cable companies as an assault on the free market. But a previous generation of right-leaning policymakers had a different view. They understood that the free market can't work without competition, and that competition sometimes requires active support from the government.

A Warning for HBO and CBS: Danger Lurks in the Stream

[Commentary] Do HBO and CBS know what they got themselves into? Do Lionsgate and Tribeca have a clue? Think parlor, spider, fly. Or, if you're of a more cinematic state of mind, think of a deal they can't refuse. Pick your metaphor.

The clever minds at the media companies think they will be able to cash in on the streaming technology that boosted Netflix and made stars on YouTube. They well might, but at some point, the same extortion racket that got to Netflix will get to them. And it won't be pretty. If HBO, CBS and the others think they can avoid the same fate, well, good luck to them. The only good that could come of this mess is that the entertainment industry wakes up and realizes that an open, neutral Internet serves their purpose. If the showbiz industry (minus NBC and Universal studios which are owned by Comcast), used its traditional muscle in Washington to team up with the tech industry and public-interest groups, to make a big push for Net Neutrality, there might be a decent chance something positive might result. But if they decide to tough it out alone, they shouldn't be surprised to hear a knock at the door and find someone saying, "Nice little video business. Be a shame if something happened to it." It's something that Tribeca co-founder Robert DeNiro would recognize from his film career.

[Brodsky is a communications consultant]

USDA Announces Funding for Rural Broadband and Telecommunications Infrastructure

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced $190.5 million in grants and loans to make broadband and other advanced communications infrastructure improvements in rural areas.

USDA is providing $190.5 million for 25 projects in 19 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Funding is contingent upon the recipients meeting the terms of their grant or loan agreements. USDA is providing assistance through the Community Connect Grant program, the Public Television Digital Transition Grant program and the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan program.

FCC suspends review of Comcast/TWC and AT&T/DirecTV mergers

The Federal Communications Commission paused the "180-day informal time clock" in its review of the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable and AT&T/DirecTV mergers.

The extension comes in response to a request by Dish Network; Comptel; Monumental Sports and Entertainment; RCN; Grande Communications; Choice Cable TV of Puerto Rico; and Writers Guild of America, West. These organizations filed their request for an extension after content companies refused to allow access to confidential carriage agreements, despite the FCC issuing a joint protective order requiring limited disclosure. The content companies that objected to providing confidential information included CBS, Scripps, Disney, Time Warner, Twenty First Century Fox, Univision, Viacom, Discovery, and TV One.

Antitrust experts slam Comcast merger plan, warn of threats to Netflix and Amazon Prime

A letter signed by more than three dozen law and economics professors and submitted to the Federal Communications Commission makes a withering case against the proposed merger of cable giants Comcast and Time Warner Cable, claiming the deal would harm consumers and violate the antimonopoly provisions of the federal Clayton Act.

According to the 16-page submission, the merger will reduce competition by providing Comcast with over 40 percent of the market for broadband internet services, and make it easier for the incumbents to hobble “over-the-top” challengers like Netflix by congesting their internet traffic. The document, signed by antitrust experts from across the country including Columbia’s Tim Wu and Stanford’s Mark Lemley, comes as the FCC decides whether or not to approve the $45 billion merger, which was announced in February. A decision is expected in 2015.

Benton

Search