Monday, August 13, 2018
Headlines Daily Digest
Tribal Lifeline Safe -- For Now
Don't Miss:
Internet/Broadband




Spectrum/Wireless


Platforms/Content








Advertising


Ownership


Government & Communications




Communications and Democracy




Security



Stories from Abroad

Broadband/Internet

A federal court has blocked the Federal Communications Commission from making changes to its Lifeline broadband subsidy program that would have effectively eliminated benefits for many Native Americans living on tribal lands. A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of the FCC’s order, saying that it would likely cause significant loss of telecommunications service to tribal areas. “While there may be some public benefit to eliminating unnecessary spending, the Tribal Lifeline program has been in existence for nearly two decades and the Federal Communications Commission has not demonstrated that allowing it to continue in its current form while these consolidated cases remain pending will result in significant harm to the government or the public at large,” the court wrote in its order. The court said the FCC “identified no evidence of fraud or misuse of funds in the aspects of the program at issue here” and that the plaintiffs, which include the Crow Creek tribe and the National Lifeline Association, are likely to win the lawsuit against the agency.

The Federal Communications Commission is proposing to maintain the US broadband standard at the current level of 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream. That's the speed standard the FCC uses each year to determine whether advanced telecommunications capabilities are "being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion." FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has called on the FCC to raise it, but a new proceeding launched at the FCC this week proposes keeping the standard the same for another year. Keeping the current speed standard would likely mean that the FCC will conclude that broadband deployment is already happening fast enough throughout the US. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai could use that conclusion in attempts to justify further deregulation of the broadband industry.

Companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are going around to state legislatures and telling them that any laws they pass that protect consumers will harm their ability to deploy networks in rural America. They claim that any legislator eager to protect their constituents from the nefarious things that can be done by companies that control access to the Internet is somehow hurting residents most desperate for an Internet connection. But their lack of willingness to invest has nothing to do with laws like net neutrality or privacy, because today they are nearly completely deregulated, sitting on a mountain of cash, and have no shown intention of connecting rural Americans to high-speed Internet while their smaller competitors take up the challenge.

In 2016, 15.4 percent or 48.9 million people lived in low-adoption neighborhoods, down from almost one-fifth in 2015. However, when looking at the share of folks living in low adoption neighborhoods by rurality, interesting dynamics surface. In 2016, more than half or 55 percent of those living in low-adoption neighborhoods were rural folks.
[Roberto Gallardo is Assistant Director of the Purdue Center for Regional Development and a Purdue Extension Community & Regional Economics Specialist]

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules for the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band), opening the path to new commercial wireless use of this band. Now the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology of the Federal Communications Commission seek comment on the results of those rule changes, as directed by Congress in the Spectrum Pipeline Act. The FCC is required to give notice and provide an opportunity for public comment before submitting to Congress no later than November 2, 2018 a report containing:
- an analysis of the results of the 2015 rule changes relating to the frequencies between 3550 megahertz and 3650 megahertz; and
- an analysis of proposals to promote and identify additional spectrum bands that can be shared between incumbent uses and new licensed and unlicensed services under such rules and identification of at least 1 gigahertz between 6 GHz and 57 GHz for such use.
GN Docket Nos. 14-177, 15-319, 17-183, and 17-258
Comments Due: September 11, 2018
Reply Comments Due: September 26, 2018

Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the internet are not media. They are something new we do not yet fully understand. To call these platforms publishers is to presume that their task is merely to produce content. It is to presume, then, that the internet should be produced, packaged, and polished, and that when someone says something bad anywhere on it then the entire internet is beschmutzed. The larger question, of course, is what the internet is and how it fits into society and society into it. We are just beginning to see what it can be. The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content. The internet connects more than 3 billion people and enables a grand diversity among them to speak, if not yet to be heard. We should view the evolution of the internet in context.
- First, it is vital to judge the totality of the value of the platforms and the net.
- Second, we need to understand the problem we are trying to address: not technology, but human behavior using technology, the bad acts of some small—yes, small—number of propagandists, trolls, misogynists, bigots, thieves, and jerks.
- Third, those of us in media must acknowledge our responsibility for the messes we’ve made.
- Fourth, it is hubris to think that we understand the full impact of the internet already.
[Jeff Jarvis is the Leonard Tow Professor of Journalistic Innovation in the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, where he directs the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism]

Online advertising companies have struggled for several years as Google and Facebook solidified their grip on digital dollars, slowing revenue for the others. Now, many ad tech companies and their investors are throwing up their hands. Venture capital money going into ad tech start-ups is falling sharply, helping push a wave of consolidation. Financing reached a high of $2.92 billion in 2015, but this year, it is on pace to be less than half that, according to CB Insights, a financial research firm. The number of independent ad tech companies has fallen 21 percent since 2013, to 185 as of the second quarter of 2018, according to LUMA Partners, which analyzes digital media and marketing. And the pace of contraction has been quickening considerably.

Children and preteens are more connected to the Internet than ever, which means retailers are looking for new ways to market — and sell — directly to young shoppers on their phones, tablets and laptops. Gone are the days of blanket television ads, marketing experts say. Instead, companies are flocking to Snapchat, YouTube Kids and other mobile apps to reach children with personalized messages. Nearly half of 10- to 12-year-olds have their own smartphones, according to Nielsen. By the time they’re teenagers, 95 percent of Americans have access to a smartphone.
“Kids are shopping on their phones and influencing much more of their families’ spending,” said Katherine Cullen, director of retail and consumer insights for the National Retail Federation. “As a result, retailers are paying a lot more attention to pint-size customers.”

Changes in decades-old broadcasting rules, combined with new types of competition in news and entertainment, are creating a drama-filled free-for-all as local US broadcasters consolidate. Consolidation will inevitably mean that fewer voices reach more people, but some in the industry argue it's the only way local broadcasting will be able to compete with big tech. Of all TV news products, local television still has the largest audience by far compared to national and cable. But it's also been hit with the greatest decline among the three types of traditional TV. Many fear that a consolidation of local broadcast networks could reduce the diversity of news voices that are accessible to the majority of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission is expected to partake in a quadrennial media review next year, where many of these issues will be revisited and deliberated.

Sinclair Broadcast Group’s singularly nasty breakup with Tribune Media may put a serious damper on the conservative-leaning broadcast giant's ability to expand, despite its persisting hunger to do so. Sinclair insists it will press on with business as usual and is already eyeing other acquisition targets in its bid to expand into a full-fledged conservative media titan on par with Fox News. But with few Washington allies outside of President Donald Trump, and now having botched the Tribune deal, the company may struggle to find other partners willing to roll the dice on facing regulators side-by-side with Sinclair. “Tribune flat-out says from the beginning Sinclair was a bad partner,” said Yosef Getachew, director of the Media and Democracy Program at Common Cause. “Any company that is interested in an agreement is going to think twice.”
[see more: Sinclair’s bumpy road ahead]

President Donald Trump has shifted lately from labeling the media “fake news” to the “enemy of the American people.” And his White House has taken an increasingly adversarial posture toward the press, including cutting off access and sharply scaling back its use of daily briefings. It seems it has decided the media is no longer worth dealing with and is much more valuable as a boogeyman. None of this is completely new, but the relationship has degraded considerably. President Trump seems to want a war with his “enemy.” But should the media oblige him? And if it doesn’t, isn’t it unilaterally disarming? A better metaphor would be that this is a game, and the media is the referee. Part of winning that game for the players may be to work the ref to try to get more favorable calls, and part of the way they may rally their fans is to make the ref into the enemy — to blame everything bad on the ref. The ref certainly wants both teams and their fans to retain faith in their judgment and fairness, but they don’t necessarily lose just because the team who is complaining the most wins the game.
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) — we welcome your comments.
© Benton Foundation 2018. Redistribution of this email publication — both internally and externally — is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org

The Benton Foundation All Rights Reserved © 2018


