1. Monthly archive
  2. February 2015

February 2015

Facebook faces fight in Europe over new privacy policy

Facebook rolled out a new privacy policy that allows the sharing of data between its various services, such as Instagram and the Atlas ad unit, and the tracking of users across much of the web. At the time, Hamburg’s Data Protection Chief said he was preparing to coordinate with counterparts across Europe to see what might need to be done about this. Now, European Union data protection officials have formed a task force to deal with the matter, on the basis that Facebook’s new policy may well contravene European privacy laws.

Regulators are now examining several aspects of the behavior allowed by Facebook’s new policy: its off-site tracking of users across sites and apps that are connected to Facebook services, its sharing of data with third parties, its use of personal information and images for commercial purposes, and again the general lack of explicit opt-in user consent for much of this. With regulators in Belgium, the Netherlands and now Germany already sniffing around Facebook’s new privacy policy, the company probably has a substantial fight on its hands.

Title II is Not Net Neutrality, and Net Neutrality is Not Utility Regulation

[Commentary] Title II is not network neutrality. Not only that, but net neutrality is not "utility" regulation.

While Title II of the Communications Act provides the firmest legal grounding for net neutrality rules, Title II and net neutrality are not one and the same. While Public Knowledge has argued that the Federal Communications Commission should use its Title II authority to enact net neutrality rules for broadband, we have never said the Title II is useful only for net neutrality. Title II will also help the FCC refocus its universal service program on broadband more directly, protect subscriber privacy, and ensure public safety and network reliability, among other things. We are not "moving the goalposts" and expanding the definition of net neutrality by pointing out that a bill that ostensibly protects net neutrality could have negative consequences for broadband in areas other than net neutrality.

While we agree that certain provisions of Title II should be forborne from (or put in abeyance) by the FCC with respect to broadband since they either have no applicability or are not needed for the broadband market today, the FCC should not voluntarily give up the authority it needs to protect broadband consumers in areas beyond net neutrality. Just because two different things are both “rules,” doesn’t mean they’re the same. And just because net neutrality supporters are finally about to put some numbers on the board, doesn’t mean the goalposts have moved.

The Soft War in High-Tech Culture

[Commentary] A shocking 73 percent of women in the industry report feeling like an outsider, compared to a mere 17 percent of men. In addition, women are paid less than men, and don’t believe they can get to the top. That worry is well-founded.

What to do? Make sure men and women with equivalent credentials start out at equal levels, and are paid equally and at a competitive rate with others in the industry. Engage and empower senior male executives to sponsor up-and-coming women. If this doesn’t happen, the “boys’ club” will stay firmly in control. Make performance standards totally transparent. With that knowledge, women will be able to determine whether they are being held to a higher standard than men. It’s obvious that unless the culture changes in tech-intensive businesses, women will never realize their dreams, a sad story for women, and for the rest of us, as well.

[Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barnett are the authors of "The New Soft War on Women"]

People Power Is Winning Net Neutrality

[Commentary] Can the people ever win in an new age of oligarchy, when corporate power is so frequently and thoroughly unbound? Yes, sometimes, they can. Consumer, civil rights, media reform and open-Internet activist groups -- Consumers Union, Color of Change, Demand Progress, CREDO Action, the Future of Music Coalition and Free Press, among others -- have for years advocated on behalf of network neutrality. And they have argued that the only way to defend “the First Amendment of the Internet” is by regulating high-speed Internet service in the public interest -- rather than in the interest of old-fashioned telephone and cable companies. Of course, media and political power-brokers are imagining that the shift by the Federal Communications Commission is largely the result of “Silicon Valley firms” such as Amazon, Google, Netflix, Mozilla and Reddit that “have called for the FCC to shore up net neutrality.” But Google did not step up in a meaningful way until September 2014, long after grassroots groups had challenged -- and upset -- FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s initial “paid prioritization” plan. Without popular pressure, an insider debate about net neutrality would have resulted in an insider deal undermining the basic premises of a free and open Internet. People power -- and a terrific “seize your moment, my lovely trolls” call to action by John Oliver that crashed the FCC’s comment system -- changed the debate. And people power must continue.

Proposed changes to US data collection fall short of NSA reformers' goals

The US intelligence community has delivered a limited list of tweaks to how long it can hold information on ordinary citizens and hide secret trawls for data, responding to President Barack Obama’s call for reform of its surveillance practices in the wake of revelations about NSA practices. But the report does not appear to address the role of telecommunications companies in collecting metadata and the use of encryption to prevent hacking, and privacy critics were quick to pounce on a year of promises with little reform to show. The outline from the intelligence community also appears to fall short of the legislative changes attempted by campaigners in Congress, focusing instead on measures to tighten internal guidelines and provide foreigners with some of the protections allowed for US citizens.

These measures include:

  • Limiting how long personal data gathered from non-US citizens can be held to five years, so long as it is deemed not relevant to ongoing intelligence investigations.
  • Asking Congress to provide some foreign nationals access to legal redress if their private information has been wilfully disclosed by US intelligence agencies.
  • Limiting to three years how long the FBI can prevent disclosure of its surveillance activities using so-called national security letters, unless a special agent deems otherwise.

The White House insisted the report “highlights substantial progress and reflects an ongoing commitment to greater transparency”.

How Much Is Too Much Television?

For all of the changes in television, none is more profound than the sheer volume of material available now. There were 352 original scripted series shown in 2014 on broadcast, cable and streaming services. That doesn't count news, sports, talk shows, documentaries, movies or reality shows. There were 26 original scripted series on cable in prime time and late night in 1999, and 199 in 2014 -- an increase of 665 percent. An additional 25 series were offered in 2014 on Netflix, Amazon or Hulu, services that didn't exist as original programmers 15 years ago. The pace is only accelerating: the number of original cable prime-time series alone has essentially doubled since 2010, according to the FX networks, which keeps count of the programs.

Talk Radio’s Advertising Problem

There are plenty of people listening to talk radio. But over the past three years, it has become increasingly difficult to make money off it. More than 50 million people in the US tune in each week to news-talk radio stations that carry advertising, making it radio’s second-most popular format, behind country music, according to Nielsen. But many national advertisers have fled from such stations in recent years, seeking to avoid associating their brands with potentially controversial programming. As a result, advertising on talk stations now costs about half what it does on music stations, given comparable audience metrics, according to industry executives.

Prince Al Waleed sells most of stake in News Corp

Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, the Saudi prince who stood by Rupert Murdoch during the phone-hacking scandal, has sold most of his stake in News Corp. Kingdom Holding Company, Prince Al Waleed’s investment vehicle, sold about SR705m ($188 million) of B shares in the company 00 cutting its stake from 6.6 percent to 1 percent.

Prince Al Waleed had used his stake to bolster Mr Murdoch during the 2011-12 phone-hacking scandal, where the media billionaire was heavily criticised and his son, James Murdoch, faced a protest vote from investors. His voting power was subsequently reduced, in line with US laws on foreign ownership.

February 4, 2015 (Will the FCC Zero-out Zero-ratings in Net Neutrality Decision?)

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015

Hearing today: Building a More Secure Cyber Future: Examining Private Sector Experience with the NIST Framework


NETWORK NEUTRALIY
   Will the FCC Zero-out Zero-ratings in Net Neutrality Decision? - analysis
   Republican FCC regulators in the dark on Web rules
   Senate Minority Leader Reid backs tough Network Neutrality rules [links to web]
   AT&T previews lawsuit it plans to file against FCC over net neutrality
   Tumblr launches network neutrality push targeting Congress [links to web]
   American Cable Association: Our Members Don't Warrant Title II [links to web]
   Network neutrality rules could lead to legal quagmire [links to web]
   Net Neutrality is Critical for Europe's Future - Tim Berners-Lee op-ed

MORE INTERNET/BROADBAND
   What Impact Will the Community Broadband Act Have? [links to web]
   Competition could cost US Internet Service Providers $24 Billion a year
   FCC Announces Entities Under Consideration As Next-In-Line Bidders For Rural Broadband Experiments Support - public notice [links to web]

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   DISH, the Spectrum Auction, and the Wrath of Commissioner Pai - analysis
   Behind Dish Wireless Coup, Ties to Alaskan Native Groups
   Dish Enjoys a Spectrum of Options - Miriam Gottfried analysis
   Cisco Makes Its Annual Predictions on Mobile Data Traffic [links to web]
   National Association of Broadcasters Tells FCC Not to 'Mandate' White Spaces [links to web]
   Homes need better Wi-Fi. Is Eero the answer? [links to web]
   Verizon Customers at Super Bowl XLIX Rack Up More than 25 Million Wireless Data Connections - press release [links to web]

MEDIA OWNERSHIP
   Investor Concern Mounting Over Time Warner Cable-Comcast Deal
   What Google Fiber is teaching us about vertical integration - AEI op-ed [links to web]
   Behind Dish Wireless Coup, Ties to Alaskan Native Groups

SECURITY/PRIVACY
   'Connect the Dots' -- An Alternative to NSA Bulk Surveillance? [links to web]
   Verizon's super-cookies are a super privacy violation - David Lazarus analysis [links to web]
   Court tosses warrant after FBI's Internet 'ruse' [links to web]
   No one knows what happened to NSA staffers who snooped on their lovers [links to web]
   Europe’s Expanding ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ - NYTimes editorial

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA
   Why Matt Drudge might be more powerful now than ever before [links to web]

TELEVISION/RADIO
   Cable TV viewing declined by more than 12 percent in January [links to web]
   What Washington Has in Store for Broadcasters and Digital Media Companies in 2015 - analysis [links to web]

CONTENT
   To save the world/Internet, please start sharing content that makes you feel bad [links to web]
   New app Timeline brings explainer journalism to mobile [links to web]
   Google killed 500 million bad ads in 2014 [links to web]
   Europe’s Expanding ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ - NYTimes editorial

HEALTH AND MEDIA
   Teens who use screens more sleep less [links to web]

CIVIC PARTICIPATION
   The Public Participation Playbook Goes Live [links to web]

OPEN GOVERNMENT
   Institute for Public Representation Lambastes FCC Order Non-Publication
   Senate Judiciary to make move on FOIA reform [links to web]

BUDGET
   FCC Fiscal Year 2016 Budget in Brief - press release
   Investing in America’s Future through R&D, Innovation, and STEM Education: The President’s FY 2016 Budget - press release [links to web]
   Big Bucks for ONC in President's FY16 Budget Request [links to web]

FCC REFORM
   FCC Adopts a Policy Statement on Forfeiture Methodology for Violations of Rules Governing Payment to Certain Federal Programs - press release [links to web]

POLICYMAKERS
   FCC Enforcement Bureau Adds Career Consumer Protection Litigator to its Leadership Team - press release [links to web]

STORIES FROM ABROAD
   Net Neutrality is Critical for Europe's Future - Tim Berners-Lee op-ed
   Europe’s Expanding ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ - NYTimes editorial
   How reporters are experiencing censorship on social media - op-ed [links to web]

MORE ONLINE
   Tech economy is booming with no bubble burst in sight [links to web]

back to top

NETWORK NEUTRALIY

WILL THE FCC ZERO-OUT ZERO-RATINGS IN NET NEUTRALITY DECISION?
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation, AUTHOR: Andrew Schwartzman]
[Commentary] As the debate over Network Neutrality nears its climax with the Federal Communications Commission’s scheduled vote on February 26, there has been increasing attention on one relatively small sub-issue, so-called “zero rating” of certain mobile wireless digital services. Zero rating is currently the subject of intense debate in Europe as well, and has long been controversial in the developing world. The reason zero rating draws such vociferous reactions is that it flies in the face of the underlying principles of Network Neutrality. It is a clear instance of discrimination in content based on the identity of the source. Data from, say, Pandora is treated differently, and favorably, compared to data from some other providers. While it is reasonably certain that the FCC will vote to declare broadband services to be subject to Title II, it remains to be seen if zero rating will be prohibited.
https://www.benton.org/blog/will-fcc-zero-out-zero-ratings-net-neutralit...
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


REPUBLICAN FCC REGULATORS IN THE DARK ON WEB RULES
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Julian Hattem]
Inside the Federal Communications Commission, some of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s four other Commissioners have largely been left in the dark regarding the application of utility-style rules to the Internet. "I have been briefed, but I think the word there is brief. It was extremely brief,” said FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, one of the FCC’s two Republicans. “I don’t have a lot of information,” he added. “The information I was given was a lot of this item is still to be determined.” An aide for Commissioner Ajit Pai, the other Republican on the FCC, said that his office had not yet seen the order either. An aide for Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said that her office, too, had not yet seen the draft.
benton.org/headlines/republican-fcc-regulators-dark-web-rules | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


AT&T PREVIEWS LAWSUIT IT PLANS TO FILE AGAINST FCC OVER NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Jon Brodkin]
AT&T seems resigned to the near-certainty that the Federal Communications Commission will reclassify broadband as a common carrier service in order to enforce network neutrality rules. But it isn't going to let the decision stand without a legal challenge, and the company is already telling the world what it's going to argue in court. The first of AT&T's two recent filings at the FCC concerns whether Internet service providers are information service providers, telecommunications service providers, or both. They are currently treated as lightly regulated information service providers, but they would be reclassified as telecommunications providers under the FCC's expected action. AT&T argues that the capabilities Internet service providers would use to throttle, block, or prioritize traffic must be classified as information services because of the way information services are defined under the law. AT&T's second filing contains a procedural argument, accusing the FCC of making a decision without doing a required analysis.
benton.org/headlines/att-previews-lawsuit-it-plans-file-against-fcc-over-net-neutrality | Ars Technica | AT&T
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

MORE INTERNET/BROADBAND

COMPETITION COULD COST US INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS $24 BILLION A YEAR
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Stacey Higginbotham]
Point Topic, a United Kingdom research firm which gathers worldwide data on broadband prices, said that if the US market were truly competitive, its Internet service providers would lose $2 billion in revenue each month. Currently, US customers spend $5.27 billion a month based on Point Topic’s report. The report is mostly a thought exercise instead of a reaction to a definitive policy change, but it does make a compelling argument that US consumers pay the price for the current broadband duopoly we have in most markets. It also noted that the US is no longer the largest broadband market -- that distinction now belongs to China, which is what the analyst is comparing the US market against. The thought exercise ends with a pretty damning conclusion -- that the lack of competition and subsequent high price for broadband has hindered adoption and is beyond where it should be compared to other wealthy countries where broadband is cheaper.
benton.org/headlines/competition-could-cost-us-internet-service-providers-24-billion-year | GigaOm | Point Topic report
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

DISH, THE SPECTRUM AUCTION, AND THE WRATH OF COMMISSIONER PAI
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai has actually picked up an issue I've championed since 2006 -- reform of the "designated entity" bidding credit. Unfortunately, as is too often the case in my opinion, Commissioner Pai directs his outrage at the wrong target. Rather than seeking constructive solutions to the tension between auction theory (which favors the largest incumbents) and competition theory (which holds the need to make sure someone wins licenses other than the largest incumbents), Commissioner Pai has decided to direct his wrath at DISH for finding a loophole in the auction structure stacked against them. In doing so, Commissioner Pai misses the real outrage of the auction. For DISH to make even a quasi-decent showing in the auction, it needed to use a bidding credit AND still spend more than $10 billion. T-Mobile, the next highest bidder at almost $2 billion, walked away with a mere handful of licenses that will do nothing to overcome the spectrum dominance of the two largest carriers. The fact that the two most robust competitors participating in the auction could spend a combined $12 billion and not appreciably alter the market structure one iota ought to raise very real concern. Bluntly, the fact that DISH could "save" $3 billion is not so much a scandal as a flashing red-light indicator that without regulatory intervention we can forget about any kind of competition in the wireless industry.
[Harold Feld is the Senior Vice President of Public Knowledge]
benton.org/headlines/dish-spectrum-auction-and-wrath-commissioner-pai | Public Knowledge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


BEHIND DISH’S COUP
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Shalini Ramachandran, Kate Linebaugh, Ryan Knutson]
The road to Dish’s coup to win a large chunk of wireless licenses -- with the aid of a $3.3 billion discount aimed at small businesses -- started in Texas and wound through Alaska. Texas investor, lawyer, fantasy-fiction author and former jailhouse teacher Stephen Hillard was a key member of an eclectic investment team that backed Dish’s successful bids for many of the licenses sold at government auction, putting to use decades of ties he had built to Alaskan Native American groups. The arrangements Hillard’s firm, Council Tree, helped put together allowed Dish to qualify for a 25% discount that is meant to bring small players into the wireless industry. Critics say Dish’s use of the incentive plan has only given a big company another avenue to control a scarce public resource -- radio waves. To obtain the small-business discount, Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen struck partnerships to create two investment vehicles -- Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless. One is backed by Doyon Ltd., an Alaskan firm owned by Native Americans with interests in oil and land. The other drew investment giant BlackRock Inc. and former FCC official John Muleta, public records show.
benton.org/headlines/behind-dish-wireless-coup-ties-alaskan-native-groups | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


SPECTRUM OF OPTIONS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Miriam Gottfried]
[Commentary] Dish won $13.3 billion worth of wireless spectrum licenses in the government’s recent auction, far more than most analysts expected. With the new additions, Dish now has roughly as much spectrum as T-Mobile US . Yet it still lacks a network to put those airwaves to use, leaving investors trying to fathom Chairman Charlie Ergen ’s plans. Amid the theories, one thing is clear: Dish’s massive spectrum holdings make it increasingly difficult for phone carriers to ignore. For Dish to realize the full value of its spectrum holdings it may need to sell its licenses – or itself. Buying Dish has become a more expensive proposition. Indeed, while Verizon may have balked at Ergen’s demands before the auction, purchasing the satellite company then would at least have saved it the takeout premium on Dish’s new spectrum and also kept an aggressive bidder out of the auction. But Verizon, or another buyer, may still have reason to act. Dish could have another plan to generate value from its spectrum: namely, building a wholesale business to lease it to other carriers. That could be even more lucrative down the line than a straight sale, according to estimates by New Street Research.
benton.org/headlines/dish-enjoys-spectrum-options | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

MEDIA OWNERSHIP

INVESTOR CONCERN MOUNTING OVER TIME WARNER CABLE-COMCAST DEAL
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Maureen Farrell]
Investors have become increasingly concerned that Comcast's $45 billion deal for Time Warner Cable won’t make it to the finish line. Time Warner Cable’s stock has dropped precipitously, falling more than 10 percent since the end of 2014. At $136.56 per share, its stock is also trading more than 10 percent below the value of Comcast’s offer, which gives Time Warner Cable shareholders 2.875 shares of Comcast for each share they own. Concerns are mounting that the Federal Communications Commission or the Justice Department could block the merger outright or that the FCC could try to get major concessions out of Comcast to approve it. If it does the latter, some analysts think that Comcast might simply walk away.
benton.org/headlines/investor-concern-mounting-over-time-warner-cable-comcast-deal | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OPEN GOVERNMENT

INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION LAMBASTES FCC ORDER NON-PUBLICATION
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Angela Campbell and Andrew Schwartzman of the Georgetown University Law’s Institute for Public Representation are accusing the Federal Communications Commission of violating the Freedom of Information Act by not publishing an order involving a request for waiver of the FCC's newspaper/broadcast crossownership rule. Campbell and Schwartzman claim that the FCC's Media Bureau did not make the Nov. 26, 2014 opinion public until after the institute found out about it from one for the affected licensees and got a copy from FCC staff, and even then it was posted in such a way that it would only come up through a search of one of the four affected licensees. They wrote that the failure to publish offends "the basic principle of administrative law that an agency should publish its substantive decisions so that stakeholders have equal access to the agency’s precedents."
benton.org/headlines/institute-public-representation-lambastes-fcc-order-non-publication | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BUDGET

FCC FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET IN BRIEF
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Press Release]
The Federal Communications Commission requests a fiscal year 2016 appropriation of $388,000,000 from offsetting collections and a $25,000,000 transfer of funds from the Universal Service Fund for a total Salaries and Expenses direct program level of $413,000,000. Over 90 percent of the increase relative to FY 2015 enacted represents the funds needed in FY 2016 to initiate a required move through GSA to new headquarters or headquarters restacking. This process is necessitated by the expiration of the FCC’s current lease. GSA is working with the FCC to identify the most-cost effective alternative to the current leasing agreement. Otherwise, the FCC requests funds to follow through on essential information technology upgrades, as well as other projects initiated during FYs 2014 and 2015, including increasing the Office of Inspector General baseline budget, developing and implementing the Do-Not-Call registry for telephone numbers used by Public Safety Answering Points, and continuing activities in support of the National Broadband Map. The FY 2016 budget request will be used to support the following Strategic Goals:
1) Promoting Economic Growth and National Leadership
2) Protecting Public Interest Goals
3) Making Network Work For Everyone
4) Promoting Operational Excellence
benton.org/headlines/fcc-fiscal-year-2016-budget-brief | Federal Communications Commission | FY 2016 Budget Estimates
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

NET NEUTRALITY IS CRITICAL FOR EUROPE'S FUTURE
[SOURCE: European Commission, AUTHOR: Tim Berners-Lee]
[Commentary] Maintaining network neutrality is critical for the future of the Web and the future of human rights, innovation and progress in Europe. Yet, some companies and governments are arguing that we should depart from the principle of net neutrality. Until now, we’ve largely got along ok without explicit laws to protect net neutrality, but as the Internet evolves, the situation has changed. If we want to maintain and enhance the Internet as an engine for growth, we must ensure that companies providing access should not be able to block, throttle, or otherwise restrict legal content and services of their users online, be it for commercial or political motivation. Of course, it is not just about blocking and throttling. It is also about stopping 'positive discrimination', such as when one internet operator favours one particular service over another. If we don’t explicitly outlaw this, we hand immense power to telcos and online service operators. In effect, they can become gatekeepers - able to handpick winners and the losers in the market and to favour their own sites, services and platforms over those of others. Binding net neutrality rules under consideration by the European Union (part of an omnibus proposal called the Telecoms Single Market Regulation) would do exactly that. The European Parliament made a clear and strong statement for net neutrality in their version of the legislation in Spring of 2014. Now it’s in the hands of the Council of the European Union to determine their position.
[Sir Tim Berners-Lee is the Founding Director of the World Wide Web Foundation]
benton.org/headlines/net-neutrality-critical-europes-future | European Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NYTIMES ON RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] European officials are pushing an idea that will encourage autocrats everywhere to demand greater censorship on the Internet. They want companies like Google and Microsoft to abide by the European Union’s recently recognized legal principle of a “right to be forgotten” not just in the 28 countries of the union but everywhere. The European position is deeply troubling because it could lead to censorship by public officials who want to whitewash the past. It also sets a terrible example for officials in other countries who might also want to demand that Internet companies remove links they don’t like.
benton.org/headlines/europes-expanding-right-be-forgotten | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Behind Dish Wireless Coup, Ties to Alaskan Native Groups

The road to Dish’s coup to win a large chunk of wireless licenses -- with the aid of a $3.3 billion discount aimed at small businesses -- started in Texas and wound through Alaska.

Texas investor, lawyer, fantasy-fiction author and former jailhouse teacher Stephen Hillard was a key member of an eclectic investment team that backed Dish’s successful bids for many of the licenses sold at government auction, putting to use decades of ties he had built to Alaskan Native American groups. The arrangements Hillard’s firm, Council Tree, helped put together allowed Dish to qualify for a 25% discount that is meant to bring small players into the wireless industry. Critics say Dish’s use of the incentive plan has only given a big company another avenue to control a scarce public resource -- radio waves. To obtain the small-business discount, Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen struck partnerships to create two investment vehicles -- Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless. One is backed by Doyon Ltd., an Alaskan firm owned by Native Americans with interests in oil and land. The other drew investment giant BlackRock Inc. and former FCC official John Muleta, public records show.

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