March 2015

How to end a fight over who should regulate Internet providers

Federal officials are discussing an end to the Federal Trade Commission's legal prohibition on regulating Internet providers and telecommunications companies -- a move that could give Washington wider authority to police perceived abuses and consumer harms in an increasingly important part of the economy. If the idea moves forward, it could mean that both the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission would have the power to go after misbehaving carriers. It could also mean greater cooperation between the two agencies as the lines between telecommunications, business and entertainment continue to merge on broadband networks.

Here's why the issue is so important: When the FCC in February decided to start regulating Internet providers more closely under net neutrality, it turned them into what the agency calls "common carriers." But the FTC's congressional charter carries an exemption for common carriers -- a provision that effectively prevents the FTC from taking enforcement actions against such firms and reserves that right for the FCC. But Republicans are warning that letting the FCC regulate the industry with rules on one hand and the FTC with antitrust lawsuits on the other could unnecessarily complicate things. "What the [FCC's net neutrality] order does is take conduct the antitrust law generally presumes is pro-competitive," said FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright during the hearing, "and declares them illegal and anticompetitive in all circumstances."

The huge FCC fine against a Virginia station is a sign we need to rethink broadcast indecency rules

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission intends to fine WDBJ, a Roanoke (VA) television station, $325,000 for a July 2012 new report that included, for three seconds, a video image of a sex act from a porn site. The FCC called the fine “the highest … ever … for a single indecent broadcast on one station,” and Travis LeBlanc, chief of the FCC’s enforcement bureau, said in a written statement, “Our action here sends a clear signal that there are severe consequences for TV stations that air sexually explicit images when children are likely to be watching.”

In my view, the case sends another clear signal: that it’s time to rethink the legal regime that holds broadcasters to different standards for indecency, and extend to them the same First Amendment protections that apply to other media. We now have new delivery systems: cable and satellite operators, web platforms, streaming services. Their features and popularity have eroded the “uniquely pervasive presence” of broadcasting. Consumers today enjoy more freedom to choose what content they consume, and they have new tools to shield their children from certain content. All of which suggests to me, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote in 2011, that “the factual basis on which Pacifica rests no longer holds true" -- and that it’s time for First Amendment purposes to treat broadcasters as equals to newspapers, magazines, and the like.

Burnstein: Bundles Could Curb Cord Cutting

Sanford Bernstein media analyst Todd Juenger held his second cord-cutting focus group and found that some so-called at-risk cord cutters keep their pay TV and Internet bundles mainly because it’s cheaper than standalone Internet service. The San Francisco (CA) group followed a similarly sized panel held earlier in March in New York and had the same general findings -- even younger customers who said they were likely to sever the pay TV cord in the next six months changed their minds after presented with current over the top offerings.

Juenger surveyed 18 men and women aged 21-to-38 (his New York group consisted of 16 people aged 23-to-38), an admittedly tiny sample. And before the Internet gets its collective knickers in a twist, Juenger himself admits that the samples are small and cautions anyone from drawing broad conclusions from the findings. But still, this is his second of four focus groups (others are planned for Chicago and Boston) and they do provide at least some insight into what younger people are thinking. And it seems they are thinking what pay TV providers have been saying all along -- that the bundle is a better value. “Hence, we remain cautiously optimistic that cord-cutting, in large numbers, isn't likely to happen,” Juenger wrote. “It's one of those ideas that sounds great in the abstract but crumbles when faced with the reality.”

The Future of Tech and Democracy, and How Privacy Pros Can Help

[Commentary] “The Future of Technology & Democracy,” a conference where technologists -- some from Google, Facebook and Twitter -- gathered to educate and inform representatives of the Federal Elections Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. The all-day event touched upon new personalized targeting models in campaign advertising and fundraising, the potential for blockchain technology to facilitate real-time contribution transparency and the reinvention of a public square that has long left behind the confines of traditional media for the social platforms of online service providers. With that in mind, here are a few takeaways for privacy professionals from this groundbreaking event:

Public Datasets Are Becoming More "Public" and Less "Private
Predictive Behavioral Targeting Works (for Campaign and Campaign Fundraising)
The Theory of Creepy Is Alive and Well: Nate Thames, executive director of ActBlue, told a story that illustrated how privacy and the theory of creepy continue to be alive and well. His campaign tech consultancy tried to reduce micro-donation friction by pre-filling ZIP code information based on IP address. The unexpected result? A substantial drop-off in donations. Users were just weirded out.
Privacy Professionals Are Needed To Safeguard Privacy and Trust

[Timothy Yim is the director of the Privacy & Technology Project at UCHastings College of Law]

Emerging tech and politics -- More than just yakking

[Commentary] Unless you're involved in the app world, work with students or are a student yourself, chances are you don't know about the app Yik Yak that allows users in the same geographic area to post anonymous notes. And, without a doubt, Sen Ted Cruz's (R-TX) campaign team didn't know about it until students at Liberty University, forced to attend his campaign launch, started mercilessly bashing him using the app while he was speaking. It's the 21st-century version of passing rude notes during an assembly -- but on a larger scale, and with a public audience. Despite getting over $60 million in investments, Yik Yak only became known to most political offices and campaigns, because of Sen Cruz. And, without a doubt, consultants and advisers, today, are all talking about how they can leverage Yik Yak and avoid a fate similar to the Cruz campaign. As with other apps and tools, like Facebook, Twitter, Vine and others, some candidates and public officials will get it right, and some will get it very, very wrong. Not just with Yik Yak, but with a large number of other apps that you might not have heard of yet -- but will.

And that's what makes technology so thrilling in politics. It's clear these are all tools that campaigns and politicians can plug into -- but there's no user guide, yet, that lays out the best way for those in politics to use emerging tech. My suggestion for them: When confronted with the challenge of how to handle new social media tools, follow Trippi's advice -- let go of the wheel. Embrace the new technology that is connecting us to each other and amplifying voices. Respect how people are using those tools. Become a part of their conversation, but don't try to dominate it. That's not just good for politicians and campaigns. Ultimately, that's good for our government.

[Bart Myers is the CEO of Countable.us, a legislative advocacy and congressional engagement app]

Silicon Valley gender gap is widening

Despite the rise of tech superstars such as Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer, Silicon Valley is still a man's world. Girls graduate high school on par with boys in math and science, but boys are more likely to pursue engineering and computing degrees in college. That disparity only grows at the graduate level and in the workforce where women are dramatically underrepresented in engineering and computing. Even those women who pursue this kind of technical career drop out at much higher rates than men.

A report released by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) is sounding a wake-up call for the industry. It warns that the gender gap in technology is widening as women are being held back by stereotypes and biases. "What we found is that not only are the numbers low, they are headed in the wrong direction," says Catherine Hill, AAUW's vice president for research. From college curriculum to hiring and retention practices, changes must be made across the board to encourage more women to see themselves as technologists and explore careers in the industry, Hill says. Women made up just 26 percent of computing professionals in 2013, substantially less than 30 years earlier and about the same percentage as in 1960. In engineering, women are even less well represented, making up just 12 percent of working engineers in 2013.

Incentive Auction Task Force Road Show

Federal Communications Commission
April 29, 2015
Denver, CO
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0326/DA-1...

The FCC's Incentive Auction Task Force will conduct information sessions in cities around the country between February and May to provide broadcasters with the opportunity to learn more about the auction.

In each city, Task Force members, along with representatives from the investment banking firm Greenhill & Co., will hold a general session to present information and address questions on the auction and the repacking process. Members of the Task Force and Greenhill representatives will also be available to meet with individual broadcasters on a confidential basis.

Broadcasters interested in attending the general session or scheduling a confidential meeting should contact Mary Margaret Jackson at MaryMargaret.Jackson@fcc.gov or 202-418-3641 prior to the applicable information session.