March 2015

NETWORK NEUTRALITY

NET NEUTRALITY LIKE FREE SPEECH, WHEELER SAYS
[SOURCE: The Guardian, AUTHOR: Juliette Garside]
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler hit back at critics of new network neutrality rules, comparing them to the first amendment and saying neither government nor private companies had the right to restrict the openness of the Internet. “This is no more regulating the internet than the first amendment regulates free speech in our country,” Chairman Wheeler said. “If the Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform in the history of the planet, can it exist without a referee? There needs to be a referee with a yardstick, and that is the structure we have put in place. A set of rules that say activity should be just and reasonable, and somebody who can raise the flag if they aren’t.” Speaking at the Mobile World Congress, Chairman Wheeler said, “Those who were opposed to the open Internet rules like to say this is Depression-era monopoly regulation. We built our model for net neutrality on the regulatory model that has been wildly successful in the US for mobile.” "We didn't go off half-cocked, we said, 'let's find a model that works,'" Chairman Wheeler said. He noted that Title II in the original law has 48 sections, of which 19 sections weren't used to regulate the wireless industry in 1993. With net neutrality, the FCC didn't use 27 of the 48 sections to oversee broadband Internet providers -- both wired and wireless. "We are being less regulatory" than with the wireless industry, he said. "Our goal is to specifically not impose restrictions or order on how [the Internet] should work," Chairman Wheeler said. "We want operators to be as innovative as possible and to have a revenue stream that is unchanged. It's with that revenue stream that they will build the networks of the future."
benton.org/headlines/network-neutrality-free-speech-and-internet-needs-rules-says-fccs-wheeler | Guardian, The | ComputerWorld | ars technica | GigaOm | The Hill | AdWeek
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WHY COMCAST, AT&T AND OTHER INTERNET PROVIDERS MIGHT NOT SUE THE FCC AFTER ALL
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung]
Internet providers are widely expected to sue the Federal Communications Commission to overturn the agency's new network neutrality rules. Who will fire the opening salvo, and when, is becoming the subject of a new Washington parlor game -- at least until the rules are actually published. But will the country's biggest broadband companies be part of the mix? That's the question facing companies such as Comcast and AT&T even as they're hoping those same federal regulators approve a set of multibillion-dollar mega-mergers. AT&T is seeking FCC and Justice Department approval for its $49 billion merger with DirecTV. Comcast, meanwhile, has proposed a $45 billion merger with Time Warner Cable. And Verizon, which appealed the FCC's previous net neutrality rules, has a pending deal with Frontier Communications that also needs federal approval. All this adds up to a minor dilemma for Internet providers. Do you sue and potentially put your deals at risk? Or do you sit back and let others move on your behalf?
benton.org/headlines/why-comcast-att-and-other-internet-providers-might-not-sue-fcc-after-all | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NET NEUTRALITY RULES DON'T PROTECT AT&T IN BATTLE OVER THROTTLING, FTC ARGUES
[SOURCE: MediaPost, AUTHOR: Wnedy Davis]
The Federal Trade Commission says in new court papers that it is entitled to continue pursuing a lawsuit against AT&T, despite the new network neutrality rules. The agency argues in court papers filed on March 2 that the net neutrality rules don't “relieve AT&T of liability for its unfair and deceptive throttling program.” The FTC argues that even if the net neutrality regulations prevent it from bringing future enforcement actions against AT&T, it's “inconceivable” that the net neutrality order applies retroactively. The agency adds that applying the rules retroactively would “effectively extinguish the monetary claims of millions of unlimited customers injured by AT&T’s unfair and deceptive conduct.” AT&T is expected to file its next round of arguments on March 5.
benton.org/headlines/net-neutrality-rules-dont-protect-att-battle-over-throttling-ftc-argues | MediaPost
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CAN COMPETITION FIX NET NON-NEUTRALITY?
[SOURCE: Digitopoly, AUTHOR: Joshua Gans]
[Commentary] The problem: we believe that competition is designed to provide consumers with more of what they want. So if your claim is that they want fast and slow lanes to management network traffic, then moving from monopoly to competition won’t stop that from happening. It will likely enhance it even if, at the same time, it delivers lower prices to consumers. Indeed, in my own work, I found that it could be a vehicle for that even if net non-neutrality is not just about network management but something more sinister -- like content provider hold-up. The broader argument is that solving the main problem with net non-neutrality -- content provider hold-up -- can be done with net neutrality while using less intrusive pricing schemes and product design to solve network management issues. In other words, I think we can have our cake and eat it too and net neutrality regulation is a good place to start.
benton.org/headlines/can-competition-fix-net-non-neutrality | Digitopoly
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

HOW NETFLIX MANEUVERED TO BECOME THE BIGGEST WINNER FROM THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY RULES
[SOURCE: InsideSources, AUTHOR: Marc Jorgensen]
Netflix has acted to subtly reframe the debate in Washington over the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed Title II public utility regulation of the Internet in the name of “Net Neutrality.” Netflix, known for its innovation in reshaping the entertainment industry, worked to add unprecedented regulations to new Net Neutrality rules that will cement its power, eliminate its current costs and, in turn, pass those costs onto all Internet users to benefit its bottom line. Netflix appears set to emerge as the biggest winner from the FCC’s approval of Title II on Feb 26.
benton.org/headlines/how-netflix-maneuvered-become-biggest-winner-fccs-net-neutrality-rules | InsideSources
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

MORE INTERNET/BROADBAND

GOV HASLAM MAY APPEAL FCC RULING THAT ALLOWS EPB TO EXPAND GIG
[SOURCE: Chattanooga Times Free Press, AUTHOR: Andy Sher]
Gov. Bill Haslam (R-TN) said he will explore whether to appeal Feb 26's Federal Communications Commission's decision allowing Chattanooga's EPB to offer lightning-speed Internet broadband beyond the municipal power distributor's service area. "We're going to have that conversation," Gov Haslam said, adding that state officials must "make sure there's a reasonable reason to do that." A spokesman for Tennessee State Rep. Jeremy Durham (R-Franklin) said the lawmakers "see this ruling as a clear example of federal overreach -- something that will certainly have an impact on state sovereignty." Gov Haslam spokesman David Smith said that the Governor "continues to believe that encouraging investment in broadband is the right thing to do and that those decisions are best made at the state level."
benton.org/headlines/gov-haslam-r-tn-may-appeal-fcc-ruling-allows-epb-expand-gig | Chattanooga Times free Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CITY-RUN INTERNET SERVICES STILL IN LIMBO AFTER FCC VOTE
[SOURCE: Center for Public Integrity, AUTHOR: Allan Holmes]
After the nation’s top Internet regulator moved to allow two cities to offer broadband service to their residents, don’t expect a lot of other cities to follow. Expect lawsuits. About 18 other states have laws that restrict cities from building or expanding government operated local broadband networks. The laws are a result of heavy lobbying and spending over the years by large telecommunications companies such as AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The Federal Communications Commission’s favorable ruling may be viewed as opening the door to towns in those states to file similar petitions of Chattanooga (TN). But that’s not likely to happen soon, said city officials overseeing networks and broadband experts. First, cities are waiting for the FCC to release their final ruling, probably later in March, on preempting the Tennessee and North Carolina laws. The details may affect how other towns view their chances of getting a favorable FCC decision.Second, it is likely the FCC’s ruling will be challenged in court, and cities want to wait for the judges to weigh in before paying lawyers to petition the FCC. Any suit will have a chilling effect on cities.
benton.org/headlines/city-run-internet-services-still-limbo-after-fcc-vote | Center for Public Integrity
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

HOW TO FUND AN OPEN, UBIQUITOUS, VERY FAST, BROADBAND INTERNET UTILITY
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Bruce Kushnick]
[Commentary] While America searches for a way to fund fiber optic broadband to everyone, and cities have taken it upon themselves to 'go around' the incumbent phone and cable companies, let me give you a different point of view. Let's discuss how to take advantage and leverage the broadband and network infrastructure commitments of the incumbent phone and cable companies, as well as companies' financial and business practices.
[Bruce Kushnick is the Executive Director of New Networks Institute]
benton.org/headlines/how-fund-open-ubiquitous-very-fast-broadband-internet-utility | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PRIVACY/SECURITY

CONSUMER PRIVACY BILL OF RIGHTS DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, CRITICS SAY
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Tracey Lien]
The White House published a draft of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act three years in the making late February, but not all privacy advocacy groups are satisfied. In a letter to President Barack Obama, representatives from US privacy and technology groups Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumer Watchdog, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and others expressed concern that the draft bill doesn’t go far enough to protect consumers. The groups criticized the draft bill for not adequately defining “what constitutes sensitive information,” not being clear about whether it protects large categories of information like geolocation data, allowing companies to retain user data indefinitely for criminal investigations without placing clear limits on data retention for that purpose, and not offering heightened protection for information about children and teens. In addition, the organizations take issue with being left out of consultations.
benton.org/headlines/consumer-privacy-bill-rights-doesnt-go-far-enough-critics-say | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELECOM

KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE VOTES TO EASE OUT LANDLINE PHONES
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Adam Beam]
Kentucky appears ready to join at least two dozen other states in deregulating its landline telephone services, the beginning of the end for the more than 100-year-old technology that is being pushed out by cellphones and high-speed Internet access. The Kentucky State Senate voted 30-3 to strip the Public Service Commission of its authority to make telecommunications companies install and maintain landline telephone service. Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY) said after the vote he will sign it into law. The bill only affects areas that have at least 15,000 households, meaning the rural mountainous parts of the state famous for their spotty cellphone coverage would still have access to landlines. And companies could not take away someone's landline in an urban area unless the Federal Communications Commission approved it. But the bill allows the larger telecommunications companies -- AT&T, Cincinnati Bell and Windstream -- to begin scaling back their landline services in favor of other options, including Internet telephone service. Since 2006, at least 26 states have passed laws that either eliminate or limit oversight from public service commissions.
benton.org/headlines/kentucky-legislature-votes-ease-out-landline-phones | Associated Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS
[SOURCE: Columbia Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Susan Milligan]
The press conference with President Barack Obama following the 2014 midterm elections just the fourth formal, solo question-and-answer exchange Obama had held in the White House in 2014, has come to define the current state of White House reporting, one in which there is a gulf between the press and the head of state it’s charged with covering. The answers are long, leaving time for just a few questions from a press corps with already-limited access to the president. Actual news is almost never made, since the White House has new tools allowing it to release and manage news on its own schedule and terms -- its online news report is but one of these. The relationship between the president and the press is more distant than it has been in a half century.
[Susan Milligan is a Washinton, DC-based freelance writer]
benton.org/headlines/president-and-press | Columbia Journalism Review
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

WHAT CHANGED THE FCC CHAIRMAN'S MIND?
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Patrick Maines]
[Commentary] The network neutrality regulation that passed with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler's vote -- and those of the other two Democrats on the FCC -- was not the much sounder one Chairman Wheeler initially proposed, but a radical version that carries within it opportunities for mischief and much worse than that. So what happened to change Wheeler's mind? The most obvious explanation is the interjection of President Barack Obama who, a few weeks before the vote, publicly stated his view that the FCC should subject Internet service providers to utility-like regulation. This is the explanation for Chairman Wheeler's switch held by most insiders, and there's no doubt that these FCC commissioners, their notional "independence" notwithstanding, move like earlier ones to the music of their parties and the Presidents that appoint them. But to think that this is all that occurred with the net neutrality vote is both too comfortable and myopic. It's too comfortable because it fails to challenge the inadequacy of the lobbies on the other side of the issue, and it's myopic because it looks past the enormous role played by the nation's crackpot left.
[Patrick Maines is President of the Media Institute]
benton.org/headlines/what-changed-fcc-chairmans-mind | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly]
The Federal Communications Commission has the opportunity to reduce barriers to foreign investment in the US communications marketplace. Let's seize this moment! The Communications Act already affords the FCC the flexibility to relax restrictions on foreign investment in certain radio licensees, including broadcast and commercial wireless. Specifically, current law prohibits greater than 25 percent of foreign investment in a US entity that controls, directly or indirectly, a US radio licensee, but only if the public interest would be served by the FCC refusing or revoking a license. In other words, the FCC is free to permit a higher foreign limit or waive the limit altogether, which was confirmed in the FCC's unanimous November 2013 Declaratory Ruling. Disappointingly, the FCC declined, at that time, to make such a positive step, deciding only to confirm that requests from current or prospective broadcast licensees seeking approval for foreign investment above the threshold would be considered on a case-by-case basis. What we need is to get the ball rolling by setting rules and policies that affirmatively permit foreign ownership above the 25 percent cap once and for all. US companies, especially smaller ones, stand to benefit from new sources of capital necessary in the super-challenging, ever-changing, consumer-centric, competitive environment that is the US marketplace. And the FCC’s reluctance to be receptive to greater foreign investment has been used as an excuse by other nations to retain indefensible trade barriers that harm US companies.
benton.org/headlines/affirmatively-expand-permissible-foreign-ownership | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

ALARMS SOUND OVER CHANGES TO EU ROAMING, NET NEUTRALITY AND PRIVACY RULES
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: David Meyer]
The European Parliament’s liberal-centrist bloc has warned over changes being made by EU countries to incoming telecoms legislation, saying they will severely weaken efforts to introduce unified net neutrality rules and eliminate mobile roaming surcharges for people moving between member states. The Council of the European Union, which represents member states, is expected to present its position on March 4 regarding the Telecoms Single Market proposal -- this follows the European Commission’s original proposal and changes made by the Parliament, and will trigger negotiations over the final text. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group said that the Council’s position is so watered down that it would undermine campaign pledges made by Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and the Parliament that came in 2014. Meanwhile, digital rights groups have released leaked documents relating to the Council’s under-development position on a separate legislative package, the new General Data Protection Regulation. The version that left Parliament would introduce very tough new rules for companies and governments handling EU citizens’ personal data, but it appears member states have been agitating for these rules to be weakened.
benton.org/headlines/alarms-sound-over-changes-eu-roaming-net-neutrality-and-privacy-rules | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

3 WAYS TO PROVIDE INTERNET ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD
[SOURCE: Brookings, AUTHOR: Joshua Bleiberg, Darrell West]
In a recent paper Darrell West examines some of the economic and political factors that prevent an estimated 4.2 billion people from accessing the Internet. Policies to mitigate the digital divide:
1. Zero rating services: A lack of disposable income is a major factor that prevents many from gaining Internet access. Users must also pay for data in addition to the cost of a device. Zero rating services circumvent this barrier by providing access to applications that have no associated data costs.
2. Reducing Taxes: Several countries have “connectivity taxes” on mobile and fixed Internet connections. These taxes drive up costs for consumers, which can make the Internet unaffordable for many families.
3. Diversifying content: English is the primary language of the Internet. This excludes millions of educated people who could use the Internet if content were available in their native tongue. Expanding the type of content on the Internet would also increase its attractiveness for people around the world.
benton.org/headlines/3-ways-provide-internet-access-developing-world | Brookings |
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

March 2015

Nextdoor Social Network Digs Deep Into Neighborhoods

Uncertainty Stalling TV Station Trading Market

March 4, 2015 (Wheeler in Barcelona; Clinton's E-mail)

Using Private E-mail, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests

Clinton isn’t first senior government leader to use personal e-mail for official business

What Hillary Clinton’s E-mails Really Reveal

Hillary Clinton’s Use of Personal E-mail

Affirmatively Expand Permissible Foreign Ownership

How the Internet Was Saved... and Why the Battle Continues

John Oliver’s rock-solid case for the repeal of Title II