November 12, 2014 (I am an independent agency)
“I am an independent agency.”
- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler
http://benton.org/headlines/todays-quote-11122014
BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
Accessibility, Privacy and Lifeline/Broadband on today’s agenda http://benton.org/calendar/2014-11-12
NETWORK NEUTRALITY
Net Neutrality Debate: Internet Access and Costs Are Top Issues - Eduardo Porter editorial
Changing How the Internet Is Regulated Probably Won't Kill It - analysis
Obama’s Call for Net Neutrality Sets Up Fight Over Rules
The FCC weighs breaking with Obama over the future of the Internet
President Obama and the FCC: A Disconnect Over Net Neutrality?
FCC Commissioner Pai: Group 'independent' of White House wishes
Conservatives Overwhelmingly Back Net Neutrality, Poll Finds
Ted Cruz was right about net neutrality: It is a little like Obamacare, after all - analysis
How the Broadband Industry Hopes to Kill Obama's Network Neutrality Plan
The FCC is stuck in the past when regulating the Internet - Michael Powell op-ed
Comcast agrees with President Obama on network neutrality, except for the legal bit
Did Verizon’s Net Neutrality Win Backfire? - analysis
In Net Neutrality Push, Internet Giants on the Sidelines
President Obama's problematic Net neutrality declaration - : Los Angeles Times editorial
Washington Can’t Stop Itself - WSJ editorial
Let’s give veterans the Internet they deserve - AEI op-ed
MORE INTERNET/BROADBAND
An Internet Tax Save - WSJ editorial [links to web]
Google Fiber is selling to businesses in limited neighborhoods for $100 a month [links to web]
OWNERSHIP
FCC GOP Members Hot Over Program Contracts Vote
Viamedia: Comcast/TWC Must Have Ad-Related Conditions [links to web]
TELEVISION
Average NY Cable Home Tunes To 25 Networks Per Month [links to web]
Some Question Mixing Reality TV, TV News [links to web]
TELECOM
Event recap: Commemorating the 1934 Communications Act [links to web]
CONTENT
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Facebook ‘complicit in political censorship’ [links to web]
$2 Billion and Counting - Spotify press release [links to web]
The Internet’s perfect death [links to web]
WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
FCC Takes Steps to Modernize the Cellular Service - public notice [links to web]
RTDNA To FCC: We Need Exclusive Spectrum [links to web]
Cell phone dead zones bring a call for more towers [links to web]
LABOR
Why Veterans Make Good Cyberwarriors [links to web]
ELECTIONS AND MEDIA
Tech’s political reality: Big money, little payoff [links to web]
SECURITY
President Obama urges China to stop cyber theft [links to web]
The high price of the Google guarantee - analysis [links to web]
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Obama China interview fuels press freedom debate [links to web]
The high price of the Google guarantee - analysis [links to web]
STORIES FROM ABROAD
European Antitrust Regulators to Hold Discussions With Google’s Rivals [links to web]
The high price of the Google guarantee - analysis [links to web]
NETWORK NEUTRALITY
INTERNET ACCESS AND COSTS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Eduardo Porter]
[Commentary] President Barack Obama suggested classifying consumer broadband as a public utility, allowing the Federal Communications Commission to set precise proscriptions covering quality of service. In principle, this makes sense. It is hard to overstate the importance of broadband to America’s economy and society. Free to do as they pleased, the clutch of companies that control access to the Internet would have enormous power to determine what information reaches Americans online. But would the cure be worse than the disease, entangling the Internet in an endless fight over regulation and perhaps slowing investment in one of the nation’s most vital services? To some extent, it depends on how you view the threat. For Gene Kimmelman, president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge, what’s at stake is no less than American democracy. Left free to decide which content flowed through their pipes, broadband providers could deploy their power in the service of their political preferences. The more prosaic -- though actually trickier -- issue net neutrality is meant to address is about price. Should broadband providers be allowed to charge providers of content differentially for different speeds or tiers of services? Consumer groups and free speech advocates like Public Knowledge argue this is a surefire way to split the Internet into “haves” and “have-nots.” The smart kid with the clever new idea would no longer be able to compete with the zippy websites of established players in the fast lane. The Internet would lose its garage-based engine of creativity. Still, the threats articulated by the staunchest defenders of a neutral Internet do not quite amount to an imminent danger, nor do they necessarily call for an all-out embrace of traditional regulation. Stopping unreasonable discrimination can be done at a lower cost, on a case-by-case basis that does not imperil perhaps the most important objective of all: extending the Internet to all Americans.
benton.org/headlines/net-neutrality-debate-internet-access-and-costs-are-top-issues | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
TITLE II WON’T KILL INTERNET
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Joshua Brustein]
[Commentary] One of the main arguments against reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service is that companies facing stronger regulations will stop making capital investments in broadband. But when asked to provide evidence backing up those claims, Comcast said that it couldn’t because cable networks have never been regulated under Title II. Verizon declined to discuss the matter, saying that there is no data. Scott Belcher, the chief executive officer of the Telecommunications Industry Association, issued a statement saying that “we saw a significant negative impact on investment the last time restrictive Title II regulation was in place, and no one will benefit from returning to that failed policy.” When a representative for the organization was asked to provide the numbers behind this claim, she sent a 2010 report forecasting lower infrastructure development if the Federal Communications Commission were to reclassify broadband under Title II at that time. (The commission decided against using Title II in its 2010 rules.) So while it’s clear that Title II legal reclassification will trigger all kinds of political and legal challenges, it’s less clear that it will cause big changes to the economics of the Internet.
benton.org/headlines/changing-how-internet-regulated-probably-wont-kill-it | Bloomberg
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
FIGHT OVER FORBEARANCE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Edward Wyatt]
When President Barack Obama argued for rules to protect an open Internet, he said the regulations should be strong. Just not too strong. Where the line would be drawn remains somewhat unclear, though the implications could be major. Under the guidelines suggested by President Obama, broadband Internet service would be treated as a utility by the Federal Communications Commission, similar to traditional phone service. But many of the rules that regulate utilities, born of an earlier era, should be ignored, President Obama said. In particular, he said, the government should not try to regulate or dictate the prices that broadband companies charge for their services. To accomplish that, the FCC, if it adopts Obama’s suggestion, would have to specify the elements of the law that should be ignored -- a concept known as forbearance. Virtually everyone agrees that some of the rules written to regulate monopoly telephone service should not be applied to 21st-century Internet service, but there are almost certain to be big disagreements in the months ahead about what rules survive.
benton.org/headlines/obamas-call-net-neutrality-sets-fight-over-rules | New York Times | AP
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
FCC BREAK FROM OBAMA?
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung, Nancy Scola]
Hours after President Barack Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction. Huddled in an FCC conference room with officials from major Web companies -- including Google, Yahoo and Etsy -- FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he preferred a more nuanced solution. His approach would deliver some of what President Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T. “What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Chairman Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.” But critics have argued that his approach would give the providers too much leeway to favor some services over others. A growing source of frustration for White House and congressional Democrats is that they have three of their own on the five-member commission at the FCC, a majority that should give them the power to push through a policy of their liking. But if Chairman Wheeler charts a different course, he could bring the other members along with him. And, as Chairman Wheeler reminded participants at his meeting with Web companies, the FCC does not answer to the Obama administration. “I am an independent agency,” Chairman Wheeler told them repeatedly
benton.org/headlines/fcc-weighs-breaking-obama-over-future-internet | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
A DISCONNECT?
[SOURCE: Government Technology, AUTHOR: Brian Heaton]
Michael Botein, professor of law at New York Law School, noted that while the President can’t officially order an independent agency such as the Federal Communications Commission to issue policy, Obama’s comments may have been an attempt to push the commission to act more quickly on network neutrality. “It almost sounds like Obama did this, and then sent a note to Wheeler to say, ‘Oh by the way, we’ve taken this position,’” Botein said. “So I am not sure there’s a lot of coordination going on.” Christopher Mitchell, director of the Telecommunications as Commons Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and an advocate for improved Internet access, said, “I think the President is trying to provide cover for the FCC to take the necessary steps to protect the open Internet despite incredibly strong opposition from the cable/telephone companies and their proxies.” There’s no timetable for the commission to release its final rulemaking on the issue.
benton.org/headlines/president-obama-and-fcc-disconnect-over-net-neutrality | Government Technology
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
FCC COMMISSIONER SAYS AGENCY IS INDEPENDENT
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Mario Trujillo]
The Federal Communications Commission must make decisions on open Internet rules independent of President Barack Obama, said FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. He said "it is unclear" if FCC commissioners will follow Obama's call to use stricter regulations to govern broadband Internet like a utility, similar to traditional telephone service. "That is a terrific question, because the FCC is not an executive branch agency, like say, the Department of Justice or the Department of Defense," he said. "We are an independent agency, and that means we make our decision based not on political considerations, but on the facts that are in the record and on the laws set forth by Congress. That is a really important decision that we have to make, and we should make it independently," he added. The two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against any proposal, though Commissioner Pai said it is too early to say since he has not seen a specific plan. "I certainly think my focus in this proceeding will be, and I dare say the FCC's focus should be, on what will best promote broadband investment and innovation," he said.
benton.org/headlines/fcc-commissioner-pai-group-independent-white-house-wishes | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
CONSERVATIVES BACK NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Time, AUTHOR: Haley Sweetland Edwards]
A poll released by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance (IFBA) found that conservatives voters like the idea of net neutrality. Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access. The poll did not ask participants about specific methods of regulation, like whether the Federal Communications Commission ought to reclassify consumer broadband Internet as a utility under “Title II”—as Obama has called for—or whether it should use “Section 706″ of the Telecommunications Act, another statute relating to broadband infrastructure. The poll, explained Andrew Shore, the executive director of IFBA, was designed to “get to the heart” of net neutrality by asking voters whether they believed that the government should prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from charging Internet content companies for special access to Internet customers.
benton.org/headlines/conservatives-overwhelmingly-back-net-neutrality-poll-finds | Time
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
NET NEUTRALITY IS LIKE OBAMACARE?
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung]
How is network neutrality like the Affordable Care Act? Let us count the ways…
Both have been subject to extensive litigation.
Both attempt to address what many perceive to be a market failure.
..By adopting a legally complex regulatory proposal...
…That could be more easily solved with a simpler (but politically controversial) solution.
benton.org/headlines/ted-cruz-was-right-about-net-neutrality-it-little-obamacare-after-all | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
OPPOSITION TO NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: National Journal, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
The nightmare scenario for Internet providers is starting to come true. Title II. So it looks like the Internet providers' lobbying campaign to prevent the executive branch from imposing stringent network neutrality regulations has failed. But they have two more branches of government to turn to. The major broadband providers issued statements saying that they're ready to continue the fight in Congress and in the courts. The companies will find sympathy among Republican lawmakers, who just won control of the Senate. Republicans won't have the 60 Senate seats they need to overcome Democratic filibusters, but that might not matter for net neutrality. Under the Congressional Review Act (which was passed as part of the Republican "Contract with America" in 1996) Congress has an opportunity to fast-track an up-or-down vote on all new federal regulations. Democrats won't be able to block a vote to repeal net neutrality rules. Republicans, however, would still need two-thirds votes in both chambers to reverse a presidential veto. The GOP is unlikely to get much bipartisan support to kill the rules. The other front in the industry's war against the new regulations will be the federal courts. Even if the courts allow the FCC to classify the Internet under Title II, there would probably be an onslaught of legal skirmishes over how much of the provision should apply.
benton.org/headlines/how-broadband-industry-hopes-kill-obamas-network-neutrality-plan | National Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
MICHAEL POWELL OP-ED
[SOURCE: Seattle Times, AUTHOR: Michael Powell]
[Commentary] For most of 2014, the Federal Communications Commission has been debating rules to protect the open Internet. The key question is whether the agency should adopt streamlined, modern rules based on the FCC’s general power to promote the broadband Internet market or to reclassify the Internet under archaic public utility rules called Title II. Lately, however, an even more convoluted idea has emerged: a hybrid approach that would dramatically expand regulation of the back end connections between so-called edge companies (apps, content and services) and Internet service providers (ISPs) under the utility approach, while using the lighter-touch general authority for the rest of the network. While much remains unknown about this proposal, what we have heard so far raises serious questions about the depth and reach of government into the Internet. Preserving an open Internet is about giving consumers the freedom to do what they want on the web and creating conditions for greater speeds and lower prices. The net neutrality debate, however, is a referendum on how big a role the government should play in regulating the Internet. Title II really amounts to giving the federal government the power to regulate rates — and state governments the power to impose new taxes on Internet access — and trample over private contracts freely negotiated in a competitive market.
[Powell is president and chief executive of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association]
benton.org/headlines/fcc-stuck-past-when-regulating-internet | Seattle Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
COMCAST AND NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Jeff John Roberts]
A day after President Barack Obama jolted the telecom industry with a bold announcement on network neutrality, Comcast declared that it agrees with him – on every point. Comcast says it is totally against “blocking,” “throttling,” “paid prioritization” and the other types of mischief that net neutrality is intended to prevent. In response to Obama’s various policy positions, Comcast stated over and over again “We agree and that is our practice.” But there is one caveat: “There is one important technical legal difference of opinion between the President and Comcast: we do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II.” In other words, Comcast likes Obama’s ideas just fine in theory, but not in practice. And while the company frames the disagreement as a “technical legal difference,” the distinction between Title II (what President Obama wants) and the Section 706 (what Comcast wants) is in fact totally monumental. Also, why Comcast is quick to say that “no blocking” and “no throttling” is its practice, the company might have added that it is currently under a legal order to abide by net neutrality until 2018 -- which was a promise it had to make when it swallowed content giant NBC.
benton.org/headlines/comcast-agrees-president-obama-network-neutrality-except-legal-bit | GigaOm | Comcast | Multichannel News | The Hill
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
VERIZON’S COURT WIN
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Ryan Knutson]
Back when Verizon Communications was preparing a court challenge to the government’s 2010 network neutrality rules, some of its counterparts in the telecommunications and cable industries reached out with some advice: Don’t sue. Recent developments indicate they may have had a point. Verizon’s victory earlier this year over the Federal Communications Commission in a net neutrality case before a federal court is now looking to many in the telecom and cable industries like a mistake. Rather than retreat from trying to enforce rules requiring equal treatment of traffic over Internet lines, the FCC raised the ante. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is considering a limited application of the restrictive Title II rules that give the commission a say in rates and terms of service on telephone lines. Chairman Wheeler and President Barack Obama also have indicated a desire to expand the rules to more fully cover wireless networks, which were largely exempted under the 2010 rules.
benton.org/headlines/did-verizons-net-neutrality-win-backfire | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
INTERNET GIANTS ON SIDELINES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Farhad Manjoo]
Silicon Valley’s giant companies have been quiet lately on the question of whether the government should protect an open Internet, which they’ve previously argued is vital to innovation. Don’t count on them staking out a stronger position even though President Barack Obama has stepped into the fray, and Washington looks to be gearing up for an epic battle over the rules that govern the Internet. In another era, the White House’s position might have elicited squeals of joy from the technology giants, which have long maintained that the future of innovation online depends on such strict net neutrality rules. But Google, which was once the industry’s most ardent supporter of net neutrality, and Facebook, which could mobilize millions of supporters through its service, both declined to comment on Obama’s position. Instead, they joined a supportive statement put out by the Internet Association, a trade group that represents a coalition of technology companies, including Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Twitter and PayPal. The muted response was not surprising. Why not? They may be too big to bother with an issue that primarily affects the smallest Internet companies. And that is a shame.
benton.org/headlines/net-neutrality-push-internet-giants-sidelines | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
PROBLEMATIC DECLARATION
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Jon Healey]
[Commentary] President Barack Obama’s network neutrality policy statement was an unusually high-level effort to sway an independent agency, all five of whose members President Obama appointed (although two were effectively chosen by Republicans). And it produced the predictable result: Advocates of the most stringent approach to net neutrality said President Obama was saving the Internet; service providers and others who are not so enthusiastic about government regulation said the President was breaking it. But President Obama seems to have underestimated how hard it will be to fit Title II to the task of protecting Net neutrality. And like many Net neutrality advocates, he also seems to ignore that restricting what ISPs can do with edge providers may also limit innovation and competition. Title II has its own problems that policymakers can't ignore.
benton.org/headlines/president-obamas-problematic-net-neutrality-declaration | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
WASHINGTON CAN’T STOP ITSELF
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Holman Jenkins Jr]
[Commentary] President Barack Obama faces an emergency: How to keep net neutrality alive as a political issue despite its lack of salience in the real world.
benton.org/headlines/washington-cant-stop-itself | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
VETERANS AND… NET NEUTRALITY?
[SOURCE: American Enterprise Institute, AUTHOR: James Glassman]
[Commentary] President Barack Obama made a disastrous decision to break with two decades of bipartisan policy and endorse classifying the Internet as a Title II utility -- a throwback to 1930s regulatory culture. Let’s hope that Title II classification doesn’t happen. If it does, infrastructure investment will be so limited that dreams of a great tech future for vets will evaporate. Only if the Internet remains subject to light-touch regulation and investment stays robust can we anticipate policy changes for veterans that will flow from technology. The Internet is a tool for moving information faster and more accurately. At the very least, it’s making veterans feel less alone. The best tools are still to come – but only if the Internet’s infrastructure remains strong and ever-changing. That won’t happen with the kind of intervention that President Obama is advocating. For the sake of veterans -- and the rest of us -- it’s vital that the Internet stays free.
[Glassman is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute]
benton.org/headlines/lets-give-veterans-internet-they-deserve | American Enterprise Institute
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
OWNERSHIP
PROGRAM CONTRACTS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The cat cannot be put back into the bag and the bell cannot be unrung. With those colorful characterizations amidst some tough talk, Federal Communications Commission members Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly expressed their disaffection, and registered their official dissent, from the FCC's vote to allow third parties to view commercially sensitive programming contracts provided the FCC as part of its vetting of the Comcast/Time Warner Cable and AT&T/DirecTV merger reviews. A majority of FCC commissioners voted to allow that third party access, upholding the FCC Media Bureau’s decision rejecting programmer challenges to the third parties seeking access and to the Media Bureau's modification of its protective order to try and assuage programmers concerns. Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly were not happy with either the product or the process.
benton.org/headlines/fcc-gop-members-hot-over-program-contracts-vote | Broadcasting&Cable | FCC | Commissioner Pai | Commissioner O’Rielly
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top