BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2010
NETWORK NEUTRALITY
The FCC’s Open Internet Rules – Stronger than You Think
FCC: ISPs can't use First Amendment as shield from network neutrality
Got a network neutrality complaint? Here's what to do
If the FCC Had Regulated the Internet
MORE ON BROADBAND
All Americans Do Not Have Access to Broadband Services – Have We Forgotten Puerto Rico?
OWNERSHIP
Genachowski Ready to OK Comcast-NBCU
Comcast NBCU concessions include 'ten-dollar' broadband
FCC Seeks Comment on Diversity Recommendations
TELEVISION/BROADCASTING
Update: Revised Broadcast License Renewal Forms Head To OMB
FCC, CBS Continue To Battle Over Janet Jackson Reveal
Why KCET never became a major player in the PBS network
SPECTRUM/WIRELESS
FLO Spectrum Sale Hints at UHF Spectrum Value
Apple Sued Over Mobile App Privacy
US Mobile Technographics
MORE ONLINE
Ten most compelling Independent telco stories of 2010
Wikileaks Leads on Blogs
NETWORK NEUTRALITY
NET NEUTRALITY RULES STRONGER THAN YOU THINK
[SOURCE: Internet Architecture and Innovation, AUTHOR: Barbara va Schewick]
Federal Communications Commission members Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn were able to strengthen the network neutrality rules proposed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. In particular, the text of the order:
sets out important principles that will guide the commission’s interpretation of the non-discrimination rule and the reasonable network management exception;
explicitly bans network providers from charging application and content providers for access to the network providers’ Internet service customers;
stops just short of an explicit ban on charging application and content providers for prioritized or otherwise enhanced access to these customers (this second practice is often called “paid prioritization”); and
keeps alive the threat of regulation with respect to the mobile Internet.
benton.org/node/47295 | Internet Architecture and Innovation | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NET NEUTRALITY AND FIRST AMENDMENT
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
The Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality order rejects the notion that Internet service providers enjoy First Amendment protection from its open Internet rules. Here's how the debate played out. Over the last two years of deliberation about net neutrality, the big ISPs sometimes compared their broadband transmission services to cable television. They did so because a crucial Supreme Court decision upheld the idea that pay-TV providers enjoy First Amendment protections as "speakers." In its order, the FCC took a stance similar to the Supreme Court, calling cable ISP analogies with Turner "inapt." "Unlike cable television operators, broadband providers typically are best described not as 'speakers,' but rather as conduits for speech. The broadband Internet access service at issue here does not involve an exercise of editorial discretion that is comparable to cable companies' choice of which stations or programs to include in their service. In this proceeding, broadband providers have not, for instance, shown that they market their services as benefiting from an editorial presence. To the contrary, Internet end users expect that they can obtain access to all or substantially all content that is available on the Internet, without the editorial intervention of their broadband provider." Bottom line, the FCC insists, its new rules are 'narrowly tailored' to limited goals. They focus on the end user's link to the Internet, barring actions that might "unfairly impede" public access to cyberspace.
benton.org/node/47293 | Ars Technica | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NET NEUTRALITY COMPLAINTS
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
Pending the effective date of release for the Federal Communications Commission's new open Internet rules, anybody will be able to file a formal or informal network neutrality complaint. Here's what the FCC's Order says about this process, and how the FCC's complaint system currently works. The FCC says its Consumer Division will soon "make available resources explaining these rules and facilitating the filing of informal complaints." For formal complaints, there's a $200 filing fee and specific procedural, appearance, and docket filing rules. Lawyers usually get involved. The process is not for the faint of heart. The complainant must first inform the "defendant" Internet service provider in writing that they are taking this step, describe the charges, and wait for the company to provide an answer, to which the complainant can file a reply. Defendants must deliver their answer within 20 days of receiving the complaint. Replies must be filed within 10 days of receiving the broadband provider's response. "In some cases, the facts might be uncontested," the Order notes, "and the proceeding can be completed based on the pleadings. In other cases, a thorough analysis of the challenged conduct might require further factual development and briefing." Complainants should keep in mind that they bear the burden of proving some kind of violation the agency's rules, the FCC says. But the broadband provider "must answer each claim with particularity and furnish facts, supported by documentation or affidavit, demonstrating the reasonableness of the challenged practice. At that point, the complainant will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the practice is not reasonable. Should experience reveal the need to adjust the burden of proof in open Internet disputes, we will do so as appropriate."
benton.org/node/47292 | Ars Technica
Recommend this Headline
back to top
IF THE FCC HAD REGULATED THE INTERNET
[SOURCE: Slate, AUTHOR: Jack Shafer]
[Commentary] In January 1993, idle regulators at the FCC belatedly discover the burgeoning world of online services. Led by CompuServe, MCI Mail, AOL, GEnie, Delphi, and Prodigy, these services have been embraced by the computer-owning public. Users "log on" to communicate via "e-mail" and "chat rooms," make online purchases and reservations, and tap information databases. Their services are "walled gardens" that don't allow the users of one service to visit or use another. The FCC declares that because these private networks use the publicly regulated telephone system, they fall under the purview of the Communications Act of 1934. The commission announces forthcoming plans to regulate the services in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." The FCC ignores the standalone Internet because nobody but academics, scientists, and some government bodies go there. So do the online services, which don't offer Internet access. "Regulating the Internet would make as much sense as regulating inter-office mail at Michigan State University," says the FCC chairman. "The online services are the future of cyberspace." The online companies protest and vow to sue the FCC, but the heavily Democratic Congress moots the suits by passing new legislation giving the commission oversight of the online world. The FCC immediately determines that the lack of interoperability among the online systems harms consumers and orders that each company submit a technical framework by January 1994 under which all online companies will unify to one shared technology in the near future. The precedent for this are the technical standards that the FCC has been setting for decades for AM and FM, and for television. The online services threaten legal action again, and again Congress passes new legislation authorizing the FCC to do as it wishes. The online companies hustle to submit a technical framework. Microsoft wants in on the game, so it persuades the FCC to extend the framework deadline to July 1995.
benton.org/node/47290 | Slate
Recommend this Headline
back to top
MORE ON BROADBAND
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN PUERTO RICO
[SOURCE: Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, AUTHOR: Henry Rivera]
[Commentary] Implementation of the National Broadband Plan (NBP) in Puerto Rico has thus far proven to be a significant hurdle for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The NBP was well received by the telecommunications and technology industries, policymakers, and several leading national Hispanic, Asian, and African American groups, all of which are quickly realizing that, without access to broadband services, they will not be able to compete and participate in the 21st century’s digital economy. The FCC’s recent study on broadband adoption found that no one in Puerto Rico has access to broadband.
1/6 of Americans (3,954,000 people) without broadband access live in Puerto Rico, which accounts for almost the entire population of Puerto Rico.
Broadband download speeds for Puerto Rico fall below 1.0 Mbps (below that of Mexico and all 33 OECD countries), while U.S. download speeds average nearly 3.8 Mbps.
Puerto Rico has a population greater than 24 U.S. states but an average median household income of only $13,189, compared to $34,809 for all areas of the United States and $28,627 for unserved areas generally. Poverty is a significant issue in Puerto Rico, with 44.8% of Puerto Rico’s residents living below the poverty line.
Puerto Rico has by far the lowest telephone penetration rate of any U.S. state. Prior Census studies suggest the actual telephone penetration rate may lie somewhere between 73% and 80%, while the local regulator in Puerto Rico estimates the rate at 40%.
benton.org/node/47273 | Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Recommend this Headline
back to top
OWNERSHIP
COMCAST ORDER CIRCULATED
[SOURCE: TVNewsCheck, AUTHOR: Kim McAvoy]
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski wants to give the green light to the Comcast-NBC joint venture … with conditions. Senior FCC officials revealed during a telephone press briefing Dec 23 that an order to do just that is being circulating among the other four commissioners. The order imposes certain conditions on the proposed merger; they were not spelled out during the press briefing. However, FCC officials indicated that the order covers issues dealing with program access, program carriage, on-line access and broadcast matters addressing localism and diversity.
benton.org/node/47288 | TVNewsCheck
Recommend this Headline
back to top
TEN DOLLAR BROADBAND
[SOURCE: Connected Planet, AUTHOR: Susana Schwartz]
Comcast’s concessions to win approval for its merger with NBC Universal include a $9.95/month high-speed Internet service for people earning less than $20,000/year. Perhaps that concession comes in light of recent research that shows the deal may raise TV prices for consumers. The argument against the deal is that the likes of DirecTV, Dish, RCN, Verizon and AT&T might have to negotiate for access to premium programming, at which point Comcast could hold out for higher prices. Those higher charges for programming would possibly be passed on to subscribers. Although Comcast seems optimistic that the deal will be approved by January, many hope the Comcast sales pitch won't blur the FCC’s vision in considering objectively the full impact of the deal on telecom providers, Web TV players and competitors in satellite and cable. Consumer advocacy groups and legislators amped it up in the last couple weeks. For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has called on the FCC to block the deal, stating "If this merger is approved, I have little doubt that Comcast-NBCU will retain hundreds of attorneys and lobbyists to exploit gaps and loopholes in any conditions and regulations," he said in a statement. "Once we allow companies to become this powerful, the FCC does not regulate them. They regulate the FCC."
benton.org/node/47285 | Connected Planet
Recommend this Headline
back to top
DIVERSITY RECOMMENDATIONS
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: ]
The Media and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus of the Federal Communications Commission seek comment on a recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age that the Commission consider a new preference program in its competitive bidding process to provide bidding credits to individuals and entities who have overcome substantial disadvantage. The Advisory Committee explains that the new preference ‘‘would expand the pool of designated entities to include those qualified applicants who have overcome substantial disadvantage," noting that the proposed program is analogous in some respects to programs used by educational institutions in their admissions processes. Comments are due on or before February 7, 2011; reply comments are due on or before February 25, 2011.
benton.org/node/47282 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top
TELEVISION/BROADCASTING
BROADCAST RENEWAL FORM TO OMB
[SOURCE: CommLawBlog, AUTHOR: ]
Changes to the broadcast license renewal application form (Form 303-S) appear to have passed the first bureaucratic hurdle: having invited public comments (which were due by December 13) and then having waited a decent interval (that would be about two days), the Federal Communications Commission has passed its proposed changes along to the Office of Management and Budget for OMB’s review. Notice of that development has now been published in the Federal Register. This gives everybody yet another opportunity to toss in any comments they might have about the revised form – but this time those comments should be directed to OMB. If you've got anything to say to OMB, you've got until January 26, 2011 to say it. Once that deadline has come and gone, look for the revised form to be officially released by the Commission, just in time for the next round of renewal applications which are due by June 1.
benton.org/node/47275 | CommLawBlog | Federal Register notice
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NIPPLEGATE STILL IN COURT
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Federal Communications Commission, backed by the Justice Department, says that broadcasters give up full First Amendment status when they get a government license, and so should be subject to government regulation of swearing and nudity when kids could be watching. That was the gist of the FCC's supplemental brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing its earlier decision that the FCC's $550,000 fine of CBS for Janet Jackson's partially exposed breast on the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show broadcast was arbitrary and capricious. The Third Circuit had sought input on whether, if CBS was found to have knowledge of the "reveal," the FCC should be applying the criminal or civil recklessness standard. The FCC argues it should be the latter, which would mean CBS could be culpable even if it was not aware of what Jackson and Justin Timberlake were going to do, so long as it should have been aware. The criminal recklessness standard applies only if CBS had been aware of the risk and chose to disregard it.
benton.org/node/47277 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top
WHY KCET NEVER MADE IT BIG IN PBS
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Melissa Maerz, Scott Collins]
Next week, in addition to being without an NFL franchise, Los Angeles will lose another hallmark asset that major cities typically claim — a flagship PBS affiliate. Why couldn't the nation's second-largest media market sustain a thriving PBS affiliate that operated a top national player? If New York, Boston and Washington (DC) can do it, why couldn't Los Angeles? While KCET officials contend they were marginalized by an institutional bias within PBS toward an elite group of East Coast stations, critics are adamant, at times withering, in their view that the local station squandered its potential, surrendered its ambition of becoming a national player and never truly connected with its viewing public - who after all were counted on to largely fund the endeavor. One need look no further than the amount of prime-time programming hours produced for the national PBS audience last year, say critics. While WNET in New York (125 hours), WGBH in Boston (135 hours) and WETA in Washington, D.C. (337 hours), combined for 597 hours, KCET contributed just 10. KCET officials, proud of their programming that included local hits like "California's Gold" and nationally distributed ones like "Tavis Smiley," maintained they were unfairly blocked from competing nationally. The PBS network greatly favored the "big three" — WETA, WGBH and WNET — which effectively formed an oligarchy that prevented not only KCET but medium and smaller PBS affiliates from grabbing prime programming hours.
benton.org/node/47279 | Los Angeles Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
SPECTRUM/WIRELESS
THE VALUE OF SPECTRUM
[SOURCE: TVTechnology, AUTHOR: Doug Lung]
One of the precepts of the FCC's plan to reallocate up to half the usable broadcast TV spectrum for broadband is that the market value of the spectrum would be much greater if it's used for broadband rather than for broadcasting. If the price AT&T is paying for Qualcomm's prime FLO spectrum is any indication, the Federal Communications Commission may have a hard time convincing broadcasters to voluntarily give up their spectrum. AT&T is set to pay $1.925 billion for spectrum currently used for Qualcomm's FLO TV operation. While that may sound like a large amount, consider that, according to the TWICE article on the shutdown, FLO was operational in 107 markets. Dividing 107 into $1.925 billion gives an average price per market of only $18 million. The price per channel would be less, as Qualcomm also owns Block E spectrum in some markets. How many TV stations would be willing to give up their TV channel for $18 million? In reality, they would receive much less, as the government would want its cut for deficit reduction. One possible reason for the lower price is this is "unpaired" spectrum -- there isn't a separate block of frequencies to be used for two-way communications. This doesn't appear to be a problem for AT&T, however.
benton.org/node/47281 | TVTechnology
Recommend this Headline
back to top
APPLE SUED OVER MOBILE APP PRIVACY
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Yukari Iwatani Kane]
Apple and four app developers have been hit with a lawsuit that alleges violations of computer fraud and privacy laws by allowing ad networks to access users’ personal information. The suit was filed on Dec 23 by the law firm KamberLaw on behalf of Jonathan Lalo, a Los Angeles County resident, in federal court in San Jose, California. It seeks class-action status. The complaint names app developers Pandora, Dictionary.com, The Weather Channel and Backflip Studios, the maker of the Paper Toss app, as well as Apple. The complaint accuses Apple of allowing ad networks to track users’ app activity based on a unique identification number. It also charged that apps were selling other information to ad networks including “users’ location, age, gender, income, ethnicity, sexual orientation and political views.”
benton.org/node/47269 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top