Benton RSS Feed

April 28, 2013
Source 
Tales of the Sausage Factory
Author 
Harold Feld
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

[Commentary] Without owning a network, Google is now happily embedded within the mobile world. And all the mobile companies, that swore in 2007 they would fight to the death to keep their platforms closed and that disruptive Google out, plan a good portion of their lifecycle around Google’s Android operating system and Google mobile applications.

Every time Google starts to look at a new business, such as wireless, or television, or broadband fiber networks, analysts shake their heads and babble on endlessly about how said new business is so totally different from what Google does and lacks basic symmetries so Google is bound to fail. This is because the analysts in question are looking at the MVPD business, or the wireless business, or the application business through the model of a traditional company. These analysts imagine that Google wants to be the next Comcast, or the next Verizon Wireless, or the next Samsung. And, looking at how hard it is to break into the respective industry, they predict Google will lack the ability to wipe out the incumbents, who will fight back with every competition repressing mechanism they have. Analysts do not understand toxoplasma gondii (or T. GOOG, for our purposes) and how it works.

Google Fiber and the Next Stage In The Evolution of T. GOOG

Topics

Related Headlines

April 28, 2013
Source 
Bloomberg
Author 
Brian Womack
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Google spent $291 million on acquisitions and assets during the first quarter as the company looked to bolster revenue and user growth.

Among the eight deals last quarter, $150 million was for patents and developed technology. In February, the company announced it agreed to buy Channel Intelligence Inc. for $125 million, adding online- marketing tools used by retailers to bolster Internet sales. Google is stepping up purchases of companies and technology to expand beyond its core search-based advertising business. Last year, the company completed its largest acquisition, buying Motorola Mobility Holdings for $12.5 billion, adding patents and a smartphone and tablet business.

Google Spent $291 Million on Acquisitions First Quarter

Topics

Related Headlines

April 28, 2013
Source 
Verge, The
Author 
Nilay Patel
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Why did Google spend $12.5 billion to purchase Motorola Mobility? It's been nearly two years since the deal was announced and close to a full year since it closed, and the questions keep piling up while the answers keep getting worse.

The biggest problem is that Motorola's patent portfolio doesn't appear to be worth anything close to what either company assumed: the judge in the Microsoft v. Motorola patent case ruled yesterday that Redmond owes a paltry $1.7 million in annual royalties for using Motorola's standards-related Wi-Fi and video-encoding patents in every Xbox 360 and Windows 7 PC sold, rather than the $4 billion Motorola had originally demanded. To put that in perspective, it would take 3,235 years for Microsoft's royalties to pay off Google's $5.5 billion valuation of Motorola's patent portfolio. That's a significant blow to Google's interest in using Motorola's patent portfolio as a defensive measure against an increasingly-litigious Apple. With the value of Motorola's patents now coming into focus, the complete implosion of a previous suit against Apple, and increasing domestic and international pressure against using standards-related patents to block competitive products, it's not unreasonable to say that any patent-related benefits to the purchase have vanished. Google may have wanted to buy a bulwark against future Apple lawsuits, but it ended up with a fairly anemic patent-licensing business instead. That's a significant blow to Google's interest in using Motorola's patent portfolio as a defensive measure against an increasingly-litigious Apple.

With the value of Motorola's patents now coming into focus, the complete implosion of a previous suit against Apple, and increasing domestic and international pressure against using standards-related patents to block competitive products, it's not unreasonable to say that any patent-related benefits to the purchase have vanished. Google may have wanted to buy a bulwark against future Apple lawsuits, but it ended up with a fairly anemic patent-licensing business instead. And that patent-licensing business certainly isn't enough to offset quarter after quarter of losses as Motorola's current products fail to compete against strong devices from Apple, Samsung, and HTC. Google has repeatedly said that it inherited an 18-month pipeline of products from the company that it needs to flush out.

Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola? Motorola Buy Delivers Google More Heartbreak Than Help (Bloomberg)

Topics

Related Headlines

April 28, 2013
Source 
New York Times
Author 
Nick Bilton
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Wolfram Alpha, a computational search engine, released a detailed report about people’s friendships and relationship habits on Facebook.

The research is corralled from the details of more than one million people who have signed up for a free feature on the Wolfram Alpha Web site, Personal Analytics for Facebook, that uses complex algorithms to answer questions and generate reports about the social network. The research found that the median user has 342 friends on Facebook. This has continued to grow rapidly in recent years. But that number does not include everyone on the service, as “there are significantly more people who have almost no Facebook friends.” The differentiating factor between people who are ultra-popular on the site, and those who are Facebook loners, seems to come down to age. “After a rapid rise, the number of friends peaks for people in their late teenage years, and then declines thereafter,” wrote Stephen Wolfram, a scientist and entrepreneur. “Why is this? I suspect it’s partly a reflection of people’s intrinsic behavior, and partly a reflection of the fact that Facebook hasn’t yet been around very long.” The report also showed the relationship status of people across Facebook. People begin to change their relationship status to “in a relationship” in their early 20s, and then at around 27 begin to tag themselves as “engaged.” The next step, of course, is letting the world know they are married. The marriage relationships status continues to grow slowly for people in the late 20s all the way to age 60.

Looking at Facebook’s Friend and Relationship Status Through Big Data

Topics

Related Headlines

April 28, 2013
Source 
New York Times
Author 
Nicole Perlroth
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Security researchers recently shed a bright light on the multimillion-dollar underground market for fake Twitter followers. Now, they are highlighting what they believe to be some of the market’s high-profile clientele.

In a follow-up to their earlier report, two Italian security researchers, Andrea Stroppa and Carlo De Micheli, call out Twitter accounts that added or lost a large number of followers in one day. Their list includes brands like Pepsi, Mercedes-Benz and Louis Vuitton; politicians like Newt Gingrich, Representative Jared Polis and Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian prime minister; and the rappers 50 Cent and Sean Combs, known as Diddy.

Researchers Call Out Twitter Celebrities With Suspicious Followings

Topics

Related Headlines

April 28, 2013
Source 
Atlantic, The
Author 
Emily Badger
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

The May issue of The Atlantic highlights two finalists from a competition New York City held earlier this year to reinvent the payphone for an era when landlines (and quarters) now seem obsolete. The city's 15-year contract with its current payphone vendors expires next year. And in advance of that opportunity to re-create this classic urban infrastructure, New York has been inviting residents, designers and tinkerers to help dream up what the phone booth might become if it could be more than just a phone. What if it were also a Wi-Fi hotspot? A bike rack? An electric car charging station? An emergency alert system?

The Payphone of the Future Is Calling

Topics

Related Headlines

April 28, 2013
Source 
Crain’s Chicago Business
Author 
Jeffrey Carter
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

[Commentary] There is a bill working its way through the Senate that would tax Internet sales transactions. President Barack Obama has said he endorses the bill to raise taxes and will sign it. Before being “for” or “against” the bill using heuristics from your personal beliefs or talking points from the competing factions, it's important to know what a government tax is. Put simply, it's a hurdle or roadblock. If you want less of something, tax it. Taxes make marketplaces less efficient. Taxes are also a limit to personal freedom. Some see taxes as a revenue generator for government. But governments can't invest, they can only spend taxpayer money. If they don't have the money from taxpayers to spend, then government can't grow. This is why lower taxes lead to less government intervention into our daily personal lives. Passing an Internet sales tax will cause our government to continue growing. Politicians will tell people that taxing the Internet will drive business to local establishments. They are wrong. Taxing the Internet won't drive more business to local establishments. It will just cause people to consume less and they will figure out new ways to avoid it. Think hard before you rally around higher taxes.

[Carter is a serial entrepreneur, independent trader and co-founder of Chicago's Hyde Park Angels.]

Taxing the Internet: Who benefits?

Topics

Related Headlines

Submitted on April 26, 2013

Last week’s Congressional oversight hearing on the Lifeline program vacillated between fact and fiction.

Thanks to efforts by Springwire and Consumer Action, more than 1,400 Americans who benefit from the program wrote to tell the committee how important Lifeline phone service is to low-income households.

Testimony from industry, consumer advocates and government confirmed that providing communications support to low-income households allows these Americans to call employers, schools, health care providers, family, veterans' help lines, and police. The bottom line is that access to communications helps people find their own pathways out of poverty.

However, despite a record overflowing with letters of support, individual stories and expert testimony, many members attending the hearing continued to perpetuate negative myths about the program.

Fiction: President Obama is responsible for the creation of the prepaid wireless Lifeline program.

Fact: Lifeline is a bi-partisan program started by the Reagan Administration and expanded in 2005 to include prepaid wireless under the Bush Administration. In 2012 the Obama administration focused on rooting out fraud, waste and abuse, reforming the program at both the user and the provider levels.

Some of the expert witnesses emphasized this basic fact by reiterating it in both their oral and written testimony. An excellent explanation of the history of the Lifeline program, the guiding concept of Universal Service and its roots in the Postal Act ushered in by the nation’s first president (yes, that would be President George Washington) can be found in the written testimony by expert witness Jessica Gonzales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC.)

Even after hearing the expert witnesses, Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Billy Long (R-MO), continued to confuse the discussion by calling the nearly 30-year old Lifeline program “Obama Phone.”

Fiction: Lifeline is a tax.

Fact: Lifeline is one of four programs of the Universal Service Fund utilized by industry for the extension of telecommunications services. These same industry groups pay into the fund. Of the four USF programs, Lifeline ranks third in cost.

Expert witness Chris Guttman-McCabe of CTIA the Wireless Association fielded this question before the panel:

“The Lifeline program, like all USF programs, is funded through levies imposed on providers of interstate telecommunications services. Wireless companies, wireline telephone companies, and VOIP providers contribute to the fund and generally recover those contributions from their end-user customers. Funds are remitted not to the U.S. Treasury, but rather go to the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit organization established by the FCC to administer the four universal service programs.

Universal service contributions collected and distributed by USAC do not impact the federal budget, the deficit, or the debt in any way. Congress appropriates no money for the fund and, because of that, increasing or decreasing the size of the Lifeline program, or any other component of the overall universal service program, will not impact the federal budget.”

Fiction: Lifeline users are not really in need.

Fact: According to data from one Lifeline provider the average Lifeline household makes $14,000 a year. That is well below the government’s definition of the “poverty line.”

Here are some additional facts carriers released about their Lifeline customers:

  • Seniors depend on this service -- 60% of customers are over the age of 45, and nearly a third of customers are over 55 years old
  • Our lowest-income households use this service – 79% of customers have an annual household income below $15,000
  • Lifeline users are diverse – 53% are Caucasian, 30% are African American and 10% are Hispanic

In comments to the FCC, carriers reported significant percentages of Lifeline users who have children, are disabled or are veterans.

Some carriers even worked with customers to create video testimonials to highlight the importance of the program.

However, if committee members at the hearing managed to miss all the written testimony, comments and letters of support, they could not miss the moving oral testimony by expert panel witness Jessica Gonzales of NHMC. Ms. Gonzales, during her five minutes of testimony, retold the stories of Lifeline users and recounted her own story of using Lifeline during a moment of need and struggle.

Fiction: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not taken serious measures to reform the Lifeline program, illustrated by the “runaway growth” of the program.

Fact: The FCC's reform measures have met and exceeded the goals to curb growth and address fraud, and are on track to save 2 billion dollars by 2014.

On May 4, 2010 the FCC asked the Federal State Joint Board to provide input into reforms for Lifeline. On June 15, 2010 the Federal Joint Board began to examine Lifeline reforms to address issues of fraud, waste and abuse.

Following the required procedures for a rule change, the Commission received Federal State Joint Board input and initiated multiple rounds of public comment. By January of 2012 the FCC voted on rule changes to address fraud, waste and abuse.

Like any nationwide program with federal, state, industry and community components, the implementation of program changes takes time and close scrutiny to ensure that the rules are properly applied. Despite these challenges, the FCC reported that it not only met its 2012 target to reduce the program by 200 million dollars but it exceeded targets by reducing the program in 2012 by 214 million dollars. The program is on track to save 2 billion dollars by 2014.

If you are curious about changes made in the 2012 order, but don’t have the time to tackle the 500- page document, I strongly suggest you check out the Commission’s expert witness for the panel, Chief of the Wireline Competition Buearu, Julie Veach’s written testimony.

As the FCC continues to enforce and implement the program changes, I hope committee members take this time to get up to speed on the facts of this important, 30-year old program.

Communications tools provide a pathway out of poverty and help the nation ensure that all Americans can fully participate in the growth of the country. Informed and educated oversight by members of Congress will help guarantee the longevity and future relevance of this critical program.

Submitted on April 26, 2013

Through a web of subsidies called the Universal Service Fund, U.S. telephone subscribers ensure that telecommunications networks are affordable and available in rural areas; that schools, libraries and rural health centers can access basic and advanced services at discounted rates; and low income consumers can still afford basic phone service. This week, a Congressional panel focused on the program that provides discounts on monthly telephone service for eligible low-income consumers to help ensure they have the opportunities and security that telephone service affords, including being able to connect to jobs, family, and 911 services. Although, historically, the low income program has been viewed as a benefit without a vocal constituency, the hearing demonstrated that many consumers rely on support to ensure their connection to vital communications.

Background
On March 7, 2013, House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Ranking Member Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) sent a letter to Commerce Committee Chairmen Fred Upton (R-MI), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Tim Murphy (R-PA) requesting a hearing on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Lifeline program, which provides low-income Americans with assistance to receive home phone service. The minority leadership pointed out that during the Bush Administration, the FCC adopted a series of decisions that allowed providers beyond traditional landline telephone companies, particularly prepaid wireless carriers, to participate in Lifeline. These decisions have increased enrollment in the program, potentially expanding its benefits to previously unreached low-income Americans. But they also created new risks for waste, fraud, and abuse as highlighted in recent press articles.

Under the leadership of current FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the FCC has taken a number of steps to address these concerns. Since 2011, the agency has adopted new rules to reduce instances of duplicative support payments. It subsequently adopted more comprehensive reforms aimed to reduce growth in the fund and ensure that eligibility standards for the program are being met. These actions have already netted over $200 million in savings.

Testimony from the Hearing
On March 26, the majority leadership answered their colleagues' letter agreeing that Congressional oversight of the program is needed. The majority letter noted the program’s rapid increase in size from $800 million in 2009 to $2.2 billion in 2012. FCC reforms, the majority leadership noted, may be slowing growth, but not containing the absolute size of the fund.

The Subcommittee scheduled an April 25 hearing to examine Lifeline and sent these questions to the FCC: Should Lifeline be frozen until pending and additional reforms are fully in place? Should the waiver allowing carriers offering pre-paid service to receive funding, even if they deploy no facilities of their own, be reconsidered? Should the program be put on a budget or placed under a cap, like other programs within the Universal Service Fund? Is a consumer co-payment in order?

On Thursday, April 25, the Subcommittee heard testimony from:

Julie Veach, the Chief of the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau
Phillip B. Jones, Chairman of the Board and President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Geoff Feiss, General Manager of the Montana Telecommunications Association
Jessica Gonzalez, Vice President of Policy and Legal Affairs of the National Hispanic Media Coalition
Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at CTIA—The Wireless Association
Billy Jack Gregg of Billy Jack Gregg Universal Consulting

Chief Veach outlined the FCC’s Lifeline reforms and noted that program is currently on track to save approximately $2 billion by the end of 2014. The reforms include: (1) requiring consumers to provide proof of eligibility at enrollment; (2) requiring consumers to certify that they understand key program rules and to recertify annually their continued eligibility for support; (3) limiting the Lifeline benefit to one per household; (4) eliminating Link Up support for all providers except those that receive high-cost universal service support on Tribal lands; (5) establishing a uniform, nationwide floor for consumers’ eligibility to participate in the program, which states may supplement; (6) enhancing requirements concerning marketing and advertising practices of supported carriers; and (7) putting in place a robust audit requirement for providers entering the Lifeline program and an ongoing independent audit requirement for providers drawing more than $5 million from the Fund. After Lifeline subscribership peaked in August 2012 at 18.2 million, it has declined quickly to 13.2 million this month.

NARUC’s Jones is also a Commissioner with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and offered testimony on the states’ role in combating waste, fraud and abuse in the Lifeline program. He cautioned that the ability of some states to audit and/or investigate waste, fraud, and abuse may be hampered by rules or laws restricting, or removing outright, their authority over wireless companies. In addition, the move to wireless meant the physical connection to the carrier, and the customer to a specific geographic location, was severed. This undermined the first line of defense against duplicative services and ineligible recipients. The creation of “free” plans also eliminated any financial incentive for customers not to seek duplicate services and further weakened the connection the consumer has with providers associated with paying a monthly bill.

Jones commended the FCC for its substantial efforts to address waste, fraud and abuse in the Lifeline program. He highlighted how the FCC has worked closely with NARUC and the states’ Public Utility Commissions (PUCs). “The Congressionally mandated Federal-State Joint Board process was utilized as designed and provided the commission with several recommendations that were subsequently acted upon,” Jones said. Data on the first recertification is now becoming available but an in-depth analysis is needed to identify areas that can be improved going forward. Jones also urged Congress to support the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Company’s efforts to complete the national accountability and eligibility databases. USAC announced last week that construction of the National Lifeline Accountability Database, or NLAD, has begun and it is expected to be operational later this year. While it cannot eliminate all abuses, this database will certainly very significantly reduce duplicative support nationally, a big step forward.

Despite the savings achieved by FCC’s reforms, warned Geoff Feiss, there is reason to believe that the savings may bottom out in the near future, and the Lifeline Program may return to a pattern of continued growth. Most of the Lifeline Reform Order’s savings have been implemented. Moreover, the level of support for prepaid wireless providers -- combined with a waiver of facilities-based service—appears to create financial incentives for continued entry of prepaid wireless providers into the Lifeline “market.”

The Montana Telecommunications Association suggested that more can be done to optimize efficiencies in the Lifeline Program:

  • The Lifeline Program is the only universal service program that has not been put on a budget. It’s time to put the program on a budget.
  • The Lifeline funding mechanism resembles the “identical support” mechanism in the High Cost Program, which the FCC has eliminated because high-cost identical support “bears no relation to the efficient cost of providing mobile voice service.” Thus, MTA recommends that Lifeline support for prepaid wireless providers should be cost-based. Alternatively, the FCC could establish a benchmark support level of $3 for prepaid wireless providers, and wireless providers could provide to the FCC cost data demonstrating why $3 is insufficient.

MTA’s recommendations, Feiss testified, could save the Lifeline Program as much as $1 billion while serving the same number of qualified low-income consumers. Or, if the program were capped at today’s level, MTA’s recommendation would provide room for considerable future growth in low-income subscribership.

Jessica Gonzalez offered the only testimony from the perspective of low income consumers: “The question posed by today’s hearing is whether Lifeline is ‘money well spent?’ I answer with a resounding ‘yes.’” Who does Lifeline serve? One major provider reported that its average Lifeline customer is a middle-aged grandmother, raising her grandchildren on only $12,000 per year. According to another major provider, 79 percent of its customers have a household income of less than $15,000 per year. Nearly a third are over the age of 55 and 36 percent are disabled. Three quarters of this provider’s customers do not have a landline at home and rely exclusively on their wireless Lifeline product. And almost half have never had a wireless phone before. Another provider shared that 74 percent of its Lifeline customers are unemployed with many explaining that they use their Lifeline wireless phone to pursue employment. According to this provider, 20 percent of its Lifeline users are over the age of 66 and 10 percent are veterans of the U.S. armed services. Another recent survey of this provider’s Lifeline customers revealed that 86 percent did not have an Internet connection at home, and 90 percent didn’t have broadband Internet access, further increasing their reliance on their Lifeline phone service. Still another provider shared that 47 percent of its Lifeline customers are over the age of 50 and 13 percent are veterans. Less than 10 percent of this provider’s customers are employed on a full-time basis.

Lifeline, said Gonzalez, removes economic barriers that prevent access to communications services and reaches the exact people that we all want to and must reach. Lifeline provides phone service to more than 15 million Americans, and has the potential to provide service to millions more. Without Lifeline, a substantial number of these people, including many Latinos, would be left behind. “By helping poor people stay connected, we are also advancing a number of other societal goals, such as enhanced education, better healthcare, getting people back to work, and ensuring public safety.” Gonzalez argued that Lifeline should be nurtured and allowed to evolve as envisioned by statute.

Guttman-McCabe offered testimony on the wireless industry’s role in Lifeline, tried to dispel a few popular misconceptions about the program, and offered CTIA’s views on the programmatic reforms recently adopted by the FCC. He noted that data demonstrates that Lifeline has been a critical component in the effort to expand telephone subscribership. The impact of the Lifeline program has been especially dramatic with respect to households with incomes of less than $10,000. Telephone penetration for those lowest income households increased from 80% in 1984 to 92% in 2012. And the gap in telephone subscribership between low income households and all households shrank from more than 11% to less than 4%. But there are still several million American households that lack any phone service.

Lifeline, Guttman-McCabe noted, does not provide cell phones to people – and does not provide low income people subsidized iPhones and iPads. Lifeline subsidies, which are set at $9.25 per month for both wireline and wireless service, only support services, not devices. Smartphones and tablets are not included in the Lifeline program.

Guttman-McCabe argued against some proposals for additional Lifeline reform including:

  • Freezing the Lifeline programs until the FCC’s 2012 reforms are in place. CTIA believes it is neither necessary nor advisable to freeze the program, as doing so would deny legitimately eligible Lifeline subscribers from accessing the program.
  • Precluding from Lifeline mobile virtual network operators, which offer service by reselling capacity procured from facilities-based wireless providers. CTIA believes this would deny Lifeline consumers the full benefit of competition-driven value and innovation that characterize the mobile wireless market.
  • Capping the size of the Lifeline program. Guttman-McCabe pointed to projections of declines in Lifeline demand, alleviating pressure on the fund and diminishing the need for a cap.
  • Consumer co-payments. CTIA members believe that a minimum charge is unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive.
  • Precluding wireless entirely from the Lifeline program. CTIA argues that this would violate the idea that universal service policy should be technologically and competitively neutral.

Billy Jack Gregg served for 26 years as the director of the West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division, charged with the responsibility of representing West Virginia utility ratepayers in state and federal proceedings which affected rates for electricity, gas, telephone and water service. He has recently conducted studies estimating each states’ potential maximum Lifeline support needed as indicated by the number of households in those states with income at or below 135% of federal poverty guidelines (FPG). Six states – Oklahoma, Maryland, Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia -- receive more than his estimated maximum. But six states – Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Hawaii and Wyoming – receive just 10% or less of their potential support based on the number of low-income households.

Gregg suggested more work needs to be done to make Lifeline more accessible to customers that are eligible for its benefits, while at the same time creating proper incentives and safeguards against fraud, waste and abuse. He recommended:

  • Creating a budget for Lifeline composed of caps on support to individual states. (The caps should be based on the number of low-income households within each state, plus a 5% buffer to account for imprecision and lag in data.)
  • If demand in a particular state exceeds the cap, then payments to carriers would be proportionately reduced to fit under the cap.
  • The FCC should conduct multiple pilot programs to determine whether a required minimum contribution from Lifeline recipients is appropriate, and if so, at what level.
  • The FCC should explore ways to encourage state involvement in providing Lifeline service to as many eligible customers as possible
  • The program should continue to focus on the customer rather than the carrier. Lifeline recipients should receive the same level of subsidy regardless of the service they choose - landline, post-paid wireless, pre-paid wireless or broadband. In this way, competition and the market choices of customers will continue to drive the evolution of Lifeline service offerings.
  • Federal and state governments should continue to promote participation by low income customers in the Lifeline program by removing barriers to participation and encouraging automatic enrollment.

Lifeline and Broadband
At the Benton Foundation, it is hard for us to examine these telecommunication debates without keeping one eye on how they impact the availability and adoption of broadband in the US. The FCC’s Julie Veach tesitified Thursday that, as part of its Lifeline reforms, the FCC adopted clear goals for the program: ensuring the availability of voice and broadband services for low-income Americans and minimizing the burden on the consumers and businesses who contribute to the program. The Commission will measure progress towards these goals by examining, among other things, the relationship between spending on the Lifeline program and penetration rates among low-income consumers.

Believing its reforms are putting Lifeline on a firm footing for the future, the Lifeline Reform Order establishes as a core program goal ensuring universal availability of broadband for low income Americans. Using a portion of the savings from the Lifeline program reforms, the FCC currently has underway a broadband pilot program that will provide data regarding how Lifeline can potentially help efficiently and effectively increase broadband adoption and retention among low-income consumers. The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau has initiated an 18-month Broadband Pilot Program consisting of 14 projects. Data from these projects – together with data from other low-income broadband adoption programs around the country, including those funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Comcast’s Internet Essentials, Centurylink’s Internet Basics, and the Connect-to-Compete program – will be analyzed to ensure a full understanding of how Lifeline might support broadband.


Phillip B. Jones testified that NARUC has supported transitioning the program to include broadband service adopting multiple resolutions in recent years.(1)

Along these lines, on April 23, Rep Doris Matsui (D-CA), a member of the Communications Subcommittee, along with Reps Waxman and Eshoo, introduced legislation to further reform and modernize Lifeline(2). The Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 would help bridge the digital divide by making in-home broadband services more affordable across the country. The bill:

  • Directs the FCC to establish a broadband Lifeline Assistance program that provides low-income Americans living in rural and urban areas with assistance in subscribing to affordable broadband service.
  • Requires the FCC, in calculating the amount of support, to routinely study the prevailing market price for service and the prevailing speed adopted by consumers of broadband service.
  • Is technology neutral to promote competition from broadband service providers under the program.
  • Allows eligible consumers to choose how they would like their Lifeline support- whether for broadband, mobile, basic telephone services or a bundle of these services. The bill clarifies that eligible households will qualify for only one Lifeline support amount for one of those functions, not for multiple purposes.
  • Requires the FCC to establish a national database to determine consumer eligibility for Lifeline and to prevent duplication.
  • Encourages the FCC to consider providing a preference to participating broadband service providers that include components involving digital literacy programs as part of their offerings.
  • Sets eligibility requirements: households must meet federal low-income guidelines or qualify for one of a handful of social service programs including, but not limited to: SNAP, Head Start, WIC, National School Lunch Program, Tribal TANF or Medicaid.

We’ve focused here mainly on the testimony delivered on April 25, but we have more coverage on this week’s hearing in a recap and links to the many letter in support of Lifeline. We’ll track the progress of the Broadband Adoption Act and any more developments in the Lifeline program -- and we’ll see you in the Headlines.


Notes:
1. NARUC’s February 2008 Resolution to Support Equal Access to Communication Technologies by People with Disabilities;
February 2009 Resolution on Lifeline and Link-Up Program Support for Broadband Internet Access Services and Devices.
back to text

2. The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM).
back to text

April 26, 2013 (Lifeline Hearing Recap)

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013

Yes, it is Friday, but there’s still lots of fun to be had in wonkland -- Bandwidth for the Buck: The State of Broadband Access and Competition in the United States, and the FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee http://benton.org/calendar/2013-04-26/


TELECOM
   Recap: The Lifeline Fund: Money Well Spent?
   FCC Announces Results of the 2012 Annual Lifeline Recertification Process - public notice
   Robocalls: Businesses dial up pressure on the FCC

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   Senate advances online sales tax measure
   Level the sales tax playing field for online and local retailers - editorial [links to web]
   Sen Baucus: Bringing online sales tax bill to the floor is 'a travesty' [links to web]
   Governors group: Sales tax bill doesn't violate tax pledge [links to web]
   ACLU: CISPA Is Dead (For Now)
   Connect America Costs to be Based on Fiber-to-the-Premise
   In the Coming Gigabit Era, Not All ISPs Can Win
   How many people have a gigabit connection? Fewer than you think. [links to web]
   Challenged by Google Fiber, ISPs opt to hasten their downfall - analysis
   Provo doesn’t know where its fiber is, Google makes city spend $500,000 to find it
   Time Warner Cable sees the Google Fiber threat and offers Austin free Wi-Fi [links to web]
   Britt: Google Fiber an ‘Overbuilder’ [links to web]
   Web oils the wheels of progress - analysis [links to web]

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   AT&T fires back at DOJ over airwave auction
   Verizon Price Gap: $30 Billion
   T-Mobile USA agrees to come clean about 'uncarrier' service plans
   Debt Dish May Give Sprint Indigestion [links to web]
   Court Denies Motorola the Billions it Wanted From Microsoft for Standard-Essential Patents
   Cellphone Customers Have at Least a Couple Reasons to Smile [links to web]
   Wi-Fi, Voice Calling Come to More New York City Subway Stations [links to web]
   Tablets Convert Consumers More Often Than Smartphones [links to web]

CONTENT
   Will broadcasters beat Aereo at its own game? [links to web]
   Google, Bing, Yahoo Still Anchor For Finding Information [links to web]
   The future of TV, according to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings [links to web]
   Businesses Take a Cautious Approach to Disclosures Using Social Media [links to web]
   Google search proves to be new word in stock market prediction [links to web]

PRIVACY
   Why lost , stolen data has touched one billion of us - op-ed [links to web]
   FTC Issues Updated FAQs on Amended Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule - press release [links to web]

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
   Proposals to end warrantless e-mail searches gain momentum in Congress [links to web]
   Senate Judiciary panel votes to require warrants for police e-mail searches
   For Congress, a Question of Cellphone Tracking
   Google Transparency Report: More government removal requests than ever before - press release [links to web]

JOURNALISM
   Why Big Cities Make Media Liberal—and Why the Koch Brothers Can't Do Anything About It - analysis
   Who's afraid of the big, bad Koch Brothers? - op-ed
   Gun Control and the Media - research [links to web]
   Why one newspaper printer is planning for growth [links to web]
   The changing face of news after Boston - editorial [links to web]

HEALTH
   Audits find organizations unaware of new data, privacy rules [links to web]

COMPANY NEWS
   Britt: Google Fiber an ‘Overbuilder’ [links to web]
   Time Warner Cable sees the Google Fiber threat and offers Austin free Wi-Fi [links to web]
   Time Warner CEO: 'Nobody' Will Pay for Aereo Service [links to web]

STORIES FROM ABROAD
   European Commission seeks feedback on commitments offered by Google to address competition concerns - public notice
   EU data protection bill threatens citizens' rights, warns civil rights coalition
   European antitrust regulator douses telco industry hopes of merger leniency
   Deutsche Telekom’s ‘anti-net-neutrality’ plans alarm German government
   Samsung to block access to app store in Iran [links to web]

back to top

TELECOM

LIFELINE: MONEY WELL SPENT?
[SOURCE: House of Representatives Commerce Committee]
On April 24, 2013, the House Commerce Committee’s Communications and Technology held a hearing to examine the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program. The program provides a subsidy to telecommunications providers to offset the cost of basic monthly service at the primary residence for eligible, low-income subscribers. These discounts can be as high as $10.00 per month, and vary depending on the subscribers’ location. Additionally, tribal communities may qualify for enhanced Lifeline assistance (up to an additional $25.00). Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said the FCC had spent $2.2 billion of "other people's money" on the program in 2012. He pointed out that the fund has increased by more than 250% since 2008, "all while the cost of phone service has gone down." He also pointed to reports that, although the subsidy is supposed to be limited to one subsidized phone, some people have eight or more. Chairman Walden also pushed for a Lifeline budget, which the FCC said it planned to have in early 2013. Julie Veech, chief of the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, said the FCC was still evaluating its reforms and could not give a time frame for when the budget would be in place.
Ranking subcommittee member Anna Eshoo (D-CA) said the FCC must continue to fix problems. But she also pointed out the program was started under iconic Republican President Ronald Reagan and that continues to advance the important public policy goal of making sure low-income homes have access to phone service. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the Commerce Committee, called it an important program and national commitment. He said he had heard from homeless vets, the disabled and others who said the program had a big impact in keeping them connected. Rep Waxman joined with Rep Eshoo and others to make the point that the Lifeline program was created under President Reagan, and expanded to wireless under President George W. Bush. He said he was not opposed to Lifeline oversight, but was opposed to it becoming a political issue. He pointed out that the universal service High Cost Fund pays hundreds per line to phone companies, compared to the $9.25 per month Lifeline subsidy, and that multiple lines to a single household can be subsidized, versus only one that is supposed to be subsidized per household under the Lifeline program.
benton.org/node/150647 | House of Representatives Commerce Committee | Broadcasting&Cable | The Hill- Blackburn | FTC – FTC Inquiry
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


FCC ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF THE 2012 ANNUAL LIFELINE RECERTIFICATION PROCESS
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Public Notice]
The Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau hereby announces the results of the 2012 Lifeline annual recertification process. In the Lifeline Reform Order, the FCC required that each eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) and, where applicable, state Lifeline administrators, a state agency or an agent of the state (collectively, “state agency”) recertify the eligibility of each ETC’s subscriber base as of June 1, 2012 by the end of 2012, and report the results to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) on FCC Form 555 by January 31, 2013.2 Subscribers that are no longer eligible or who do not respond to attempts to recertify their eligibility must be de-enrolled from the program. Based on results from the FCC Forms 555 submitted by ETCs, and analysis from USAC, the Bureau reports that 29 percent of all subscribers that were enrolled in the program in June 2012 have been de-enrolled from the program.
benton.org/node/150392 | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


ROBOCALLS
[SOURCE: Politico, AUTHOR: Brooks Boliek]
Business groups representing industries from health care to banking are pressuring the Federal Communications Commission to ease its rules on robocalls — saying they should get a carve-out for technology that automatically dials customers. In meetings with top FCC aides, executives with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association and American Association of Health Care Administrative Management say they’re being victimized by unfair class action lawsuits brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and that the “predictive dialers” they use should be exempt from robocall rules. Such predictive-dialing technology allows “businesses with a legitimate need to contact large numbers of specific customers for nontelemarketing purposes,” the groups told top FCC staff during a spate of recent meetings. The meeting is part of an escalating fight at the commission over the TCPA, a 1991 law designed to crack down on telemarketer robocalls peddling goods and services. Congress modified the law in 2003, ordering the Federal Trade Commission to establish a Do Not Call Registry for consumers.
benton.org/node/150634 | Politico
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

ONLINE SALES TAX BILL READY FOR FINAL SENATE VOTE
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Ramsey Cox]
The Senate agreed to advance a bill that would allow states to collect online sales tax. In a 63-30 vote, the Senate ended debate on The Marketplace Fairness Act, S. 743, which would empower states to collect taxes on purchases made online by consumers in their states. The Senate will vote on final passage of the bill when senators return May 6 from a weeklong recess. The strong vote suggest supporters of the bill are likely to see it win approval since final passage requires only a majority. Its path through the House, despite the support of many GOP governors, is less clear.
benton.org/node/150642 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


CISPA DEAD IN SENATE
[SOURCE: US News and World Report, AUTHOR: Jason Koebler]
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is all but dead, again. The controversial cybersecurity bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week, will almost certainly be shelved by the Senate, according to a representative of the Senate Commerce Committee. "We're not taking [CISPA] up," the committee representative said. "Staff and senators are divvying up the issues and the key provisions everyone agrees would need to be handled if we're going to strengthen cybersecurity. They'll be drafting separate bills." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the committee, said the passage of cybersecurity legislation is "important," but said the bill's "privacy protections are insufficient." That, coupled with the fact that President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill, has even CISPA's staunchest opponents, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, ready to bury CISPA and focus on future legislation. "I think it's dead for now," says Michelle Richardson, legislative council with the ACLU. "CISPA is too controversial, it's too expansive, it's just not the same sort of program contemplated by the Senate last year. We're pleased to hear the Senate will probably pick up where it left off last year."
benton.org/node/150465 | US News and World Report
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


CONNECT AMERICA AND FIBER
[SOURCE: telecompetitor, AUTHOR: Joan Engebretson]
When the Federal Communications Commission determines how much support to offer price cap carriers to bring broadband to areas that do not have broadband today in Phase 2 of the Connect America Fund program, the funding offered will be calculated based on the assumption that the carrier will use a fiber-to-the-premises approach. The FCC made the decision to use this approach in a report and order issued yesterday, in which the commission also said it would use a greenfield approach in calculating support levels. The FCC’s decision to calculate funding using FTTP may come as a surprise to readers, many of whom are acutely aware of how adamantly the crafters of Universal Service reform plans have defended a target speed of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream for the broadband Connect America Fund program. In many cases carriers could achieve the 4/1 Mbps speed target using digital subscriber line (DSL), which typically is a less costly upgrade than doing an overbuild using FTTP — and it was that logic that appeared to drive the relatively unambitious speed target. In justifying its decision, the FCC noted that DSL networks have higher expected operating expenses than FTTP networks and are more likely to require significant additional investment to make faster broadband offerings available in the future. Carriers accepting CAF Phase 2 funding will not be required to deploy FTTP however.
benton.org/node/150373 | telecompetitor
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


NAOT ALL ISPs CAN WIN
[SOURCE: telecompetitor, AUTHOR: Gary Kim]
Now that Google Fiber is to be built in three U.S. cities, and given AT&T’s announced intention to counter with a 1-Gbps network of its own in Austin, Texas, new attention will be paid to precisely what has to be tweaked in an ISP’s business plan to make such networks possible on a wider scale. Other ISPs are taking a look at the economics as well. Wicked Broadband in Lawrence, Kansas, for example, is among the latest to announce it will build a 1-Gbps network. Work will have to be done on both the revenue and cost fronts, since the retail pricing set by Google Fiber ($70 a month for 1 Gbps, free 5 Mbps service) disrupts current pricing levels. Where available, 1-Gbps connections have sold for about $300 a month (Utopia in Utah) (EPB Fiber in Tennessee) (Sonic.net in northern California). With a $70 retail price for 1 Gbps, all lower speed services likewise will have to be reevaluated. That is going to compress profit margins for any ISP that actually does boost speeds, even if speeds are not increased all the way to 1 Gbps immediately, since the “1 Gbps for $70” pricing umbrella almost inevitably will require a revision of all lower-speed prices as well, as that price point is lower than what ISPs now set for 50 Mbps services.
benton.org/node/150375 | telecompetitor
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


ISPs VS GOOGLE FIBER
[SOURCE: InfoWorld, AUTHOR: By Paul Venezia]
[Commentary] Last summer I posited that Google's fiber play in Kansas City would create a ripple through other regions of the country. The first surprise was the continued ostrich maneuver that some big cable and DSL providers are pulling, namely the "customers don't want gigabit Internet" front. This could be likened to a lead paint salesman pooh-poohing latex paint because "customers don't want their health." It's just blather -- a smokescreen to obscure the fact that the entrenched monopolies/oligopolies do not want to upgrade their networks. It's easy to justify delivering subpar performance for premium prices if you delude yourself into thinking that your customers don't want anything more. The second was the speed with which Google Fiber has been requested and deployed. There are already plans to expand the initial Kansas City footprint, and Google recently announced plans to deploy a new network in Austin, Texas, as well as purchase a failed community fiber network in Provo, Utah, and turn it into a Google Fiber plant. Suddenly, we're looking at gigabit fiber Internet in three locations in the United States, not just a "test" in Kansas City. Third was the reaction from other segments of the incumbent ISP cabal. AT&T announced it will be deploying a gigabit fiber network in Austin as well. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath on this one. I figure this is a press release designed to bluff Google and other involved parties in the Austin area and to gain some mindshare that AT&T is stepping up to the challenge.
benton.org/node/150372 | InfoWorld
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


GOOGLE AND PROVO
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Cyrus Farivar]
The Provo (UT) city council formally approved the transfer of its iProvo fiber network to Google, making the city the third metro area to gain that sweet, sweet gigabit service. Google is only paying $1 for the network, but in return it will have to provide a “basic five-megabit” connection to all residents for seven years and provide free gigabit service to 25 public institutions. As it turns out, though, it’s as good of a deal as it might seem. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Provo Mayor John Curtis revealed Tuesday that the city now owes an additional $1.7 million to keep those fiber-optic lights on. The city must also pay “about $500,000 to a civil engineering firm to determine exactly where the fiber optic cables are buried, a requirement by Google," the Tribune reported. "Curtis admitted that the construction company that installed the fiber cables underground did not keep records of where they buried all of them.”
benton.org/node/150389 | Ars Technica
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

AT&T RESPONDS TO JUSTICE
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso, Jennifer Martinez]
AT&T argued that it would be illegal for the Federal Communications Commission to follow the Justice Department's advice on the upcoming auction of airwave licenses. In a filing with the FCC, AT&T argued that the Justice Department is asking the agency to rig the auctions in favor of Sprint and T-Mobile, the smaller of the four national carriers. "It is surprising that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice would even propose measures that are so nakedly designed to help specific companies," AT&T wrote. The company argued that it would be illegal for the FCC to violate the public's interest to boost particular competitors. "Picking winners and losers in this fashion would be patently unlawful," AT&T wrote. AT&T said the claim that it is warehousing spectrum is "completely divorced from reality."
benton.org/node/150641 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


VERIZON-VODAFONE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Dana Cimilluca, Spencer Ante]
Verizon Communications is eager to buy Vodafone Group out of their massive mobile-phone joint venture—but it will have to get over a $30 billion hurdle. That amount is roughly the difference between what people on either side of the potential deal say Vodafone's 45% stake in the biggest U.S. mobile operator, Verizon Wireless, is worth. The Verizon camp starts at a valuation around $100 billion; for Vodafone, the stake is worth about $130 billion, people familiar with the matter said. The disagreement over price is in the spotlight now that Verizon has launched a public push to acquire the U.K. company's stake.
benton.org/node/150645 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


T-MOBILE SETTLEMENT
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Stephen Lawson]
T-Mobile USA's "radical" service plans promising no annual contracts aren't quite as radical as consumers might think, and the mobile operator will change its advertising and offer refunds in a settlement with the state of Washington. On March 26, the fourth-largest U.S. carrier introduced a series of new service offerings, including no-contract monthly plans and a program that let customers pay for a new phone over the course of 24 months. In unveiling the plans, T-Mobile thumbed its nose at rival mobile operators, calling the new offerings "uncarrier" plans that would free the company and its customers from the constraints of conventional service agreements. Now the company has agreed to clarify a few things in that pitch after an investigation by the Washington Attorney General's Office. Specifically, T-Mobile didn't tell potential customers who bought phones on time that they would have to keep T-Mobile service for 24 months or pay off the rest of the phone's full price when they canceled the service, said Paula Sellis, an attorney who handled the case in the Attorney General's Office. The fine-print disclosures that T-Mobile did offer were hard to understand, she said.
benton.org/node/150639 | IDG News Service | WSJ
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


PATENT DECISION
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Ina Fried, John Paczkowski]
A federal court in Seattle issued a ruling that could help settle the question of just how much a company can expect to reap from standard-essential patent. In the highly-anticipated court ruling, U.S. District Judge James Robart determined that Google’s Motorola Mobility unit is entitled to about $1.8 million a year from Microsoft for its use of certain patents. Motorola had been seeking in excess of $4 billion in the case, which centered around patents related to the H.264 video standard and the 802.11 wireless standard. In making its determination, the court noted that there are some 92 different entities with patents essential to 802.11 networking. If each of them got the 1.15 percent to 1.73 percent royalty that Motorola wanted, the cost of just wireless networking alone would exceed the price of the Xbox Microsoft was using it in.
benton.org/node/150644 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVES EPCA UPDATE
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation that would require police to obtain a warrant before accessing e-mails, Facebook messages and other private online content. The bill, which is sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), was approved on a voice vote and now heads to the Senate floor. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee's ranking member, noted that the House is considering expanding Electronic Communications Privacy Act to require a warrant to access GPS data in addition to email content. He said that if the Senate decides to adopt GPS protections, the Judiciary Committee should first hold a hearing to study the issue more closely. He also argued that the Senate should carefully consider the concerns of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary Jo White, who has warned that the legislation could impede civil investigations where agents do not have warrant authority. The committee adopted an amendment from Sen Grassley on that would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of how police are using the law. Leahy also added a technical amendment to clarify that the bill does not affect wiretap or foreign surveillance laws.
benton.org/node/150401 | Hill, The | AdWeek | B&C
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


CELLPHONE TRACKING
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Somini Sengupta]
While the Senate considered an overhaul of a sweeping quarter-century-old law governing e-mail privacy, a House Judiciary Committee panel received dueling arguments over when and how police can track the location of Americans carrying a cellphone. For investigators, knowing where a suspect is and at what time can be crucial to an investigation. Cellphones have become a powerful tool for establishing those facts — one detective scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill described them in prepared remarks as a “witness” to a crime. Less clear is the law on how authorities can extract that information from cellphones. Law enforcement officials say procuring a search warrant, based on probable cause, is too time-consuming and slows down an investigation. The law is vague on what information cellphone carriers must turn over to law enforcement and whether the officials require judicial review. Under what circumstances can police obtain a “tower dump,” meaning identify cellphone users whose devices pinged off a particular cellphone tower? Should a warrant be required to monitor the location of an individual with whom a known suspect is communicating? Should a warrant be required for specific location information of a known suspect? There is no consensus in the law on these questions.
benton.org/node/150395 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

JOURNALISM

CITY NEWSPAPERS
[SOURCE: The Atlantic, AUTHOR: Garance Franke-Ruta]
[Commentary] Apparently, the Koch brothers are considering buying the Tribune network of newspapers in a bid to establish a pro-business conservative media chain. I say, good luck with that. There are several reasons regional newspapers are an awkward fit for anyone looking to counter-program what they see as liberal bias in the news media. The main reason is that all major U.S. newspapers are based in cities. Cities in America are in the main run by Democrats, because they are populated, by and large, with Democrats, and very often also surrounded by Democratic suburbs. And because cities are run by Democrats, and populated by not only by Democrats but, very often, by liberal, minority, and immigrant Democrats, they tend to have laws on the books that at least formally signal a desire to serve the interests of these voting groups -- their residents, let's call them. The Koch brothers could try to make the Los Angeles Times or the Baltimore Sun more appealing to a different intellectual community. But if they were to buy the papers and push their newsrooms in a more conservative direction, I suspect they would see an increase in the pace at which the geographic communities that once sustained the publications abandon them.
benton.org/node/150381 | Atlantic, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


WHO’S AFRAID OF THE KOCH BROTHERS?
[SOURCE: Crain’s Chicago Business, AUTHOR: Marcel Pacatte]
[Commentary] Why is the City of Big Shoulders so afraid of the Koch Brothers? Our snootiness this time seems much more wan and hollow than it did in 1984, when the Fields of department store fame sold the Sun-Times to Rupert Murdoch. So why, then, are we so afraid of a couple of reactionary rich guys from Kansas? So why do we care that these funders of conservative Republican causes want to buy a few newspapers in some of the nation's most liberal cities? Do we really think they'll be able to not only control the content in Tribune Co. properties but also brainwash us with it? Come on, Shoulderans. Have some faith in yourselves. Let's take their money. [Pacatte teaches at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism]
benton.org/node/150379 | Crain’s Chicago Business
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

EC SEEKS FEEDBACK ON GOOGLE CONDITIONS
[SOURCE: European Commission, AUTHOR: Public Notice]
The European Commission invites comments from interested parties on commitments offered by Google in relation to online search and search advertising. The Commission has concerns that Google may be abusing its dominant position in the markets for web search, online search advertising and online search advertising intermediation in the European Economic Area (EEA). Google has made proposals to try to address the Commission's four competition concerns. Interested parties can now submit their comments within one month. The Commission will take them into account in its analysis of Google's commitment proposals. If the Commission concludes that they address its four competition concerns, it may decide to make them legally binding on Google. Google offers for a period of 5 years to:
(i) - label promoted links to its own specialized search services so that users can distinguish them from natural web search results,
- clearly separate these promoted links from other web search results by clear graphical features (such as a frame), and
- display links to three rival specialized search services close to its own services, in a place that is clearly visible to users,
(ii) - offer all websites the option to opt-out from the use of all their content in Google's specialized search services, while ensuring that any opt-out does not unduly affect the ranking of those web sites in Google's general web search results,
- offer all specialized search web sites that focus on product search or local search the option to mark certain categories of information in such a way that such information is not indexed or used by Google,
- provide newspaper publishers with a mechanism allowing them to control on a web page per web page basis the display of their content in Google News,
(iii) no longer include in its agreements with publishers any written or unwritten obligations that would require them to source online search advertisements exclusively from Google, and
(iv) no longer impose obligations that would prevent advertisers from managing search advertising campaigns across competing advertising platforms.
benton.org/node/150408 | European Commission | GigaOm | IDG News Service | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


EU DATA PROTECTION BILL
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Jennifer Baker]
Some of the proposed changes to Europe's data protection laws would strip citizens of their privacy rights, a coalition of international civil liberties organizations said. The European Parliament is currently considering proposals from the European Commission for a complete overhaul of the E.U.'s data protection laws. The original laws date from 1995, the pre-Internet age, and are arguably in great need of an update. However, the debate about how to update them has been intense. Creating one regulation to replace national data protection and privacy laws in the 27 E.U. countries obviously requires compromise, but many parliamentarians report never seeing lobbying on such a scale before. In an effort to reach some sort of consensus, more than 4,000 changes to the draft text have been proposed. The civil liberties coalition, which includes Access, Bits of Freedom, EDRI, La Quadrature du Net and Privacy International, has set up a website, nakedcitizens.eu, to help concerned citizens contact their representatives in the Parliament. The groups have also presented a report based on their analysis of the proposed amendments.
benton.org/node/150461 | IDG News Service
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


EUROPEAN TELCO MERGERS
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Foo Yun Chee]
A senior European Commission official suggested regulators would not be swayed by requests from telecoms companies for more leniency in assessing mergers, saying there was no guarantee that bigger companies would result in more investment. Cecilio Madero, deputy director-general for antitrust at the European Commission, said: "Frankly speaking, we do not have evidence that operators will invest more if they reach a bigger size as long as markets will remain fragmented and along national borders." Lobbying group the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO) said the gloomy outlook in the sector in Europe, compared with upbeat prospects in Asia and North America, called for a change in EU competition policy. "In reality, competition has shifted from the national level, and indeed from European level, to the global arena," said ETNO head Luigi Gambardella. But the EC's Madero said: "What we cannot do in any event is to give some companies a sort of blank check to consolidate within their national borders and increase prices for consumers on the basis of mere promises of further investments."
benton.org/node/150464 | Reuters
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


DT VS NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: David Meyer]
Users of Deutsche Telekom’s mobile services are used to the concept of data caps, but its fixed-line customers? Not so much. This is part of the reason why the German government is reportedly upset about the telco’s plans to drop flat-rate pricing for its DSL services – the most alarming part, however, is that Telekom apparently wants to exempt its own services from the cap. We’re into classic network neutrality territory here. As the company announced a few days ago, Telekom’s customers will be able to stream films from the carrier’s own T-Entertain service without any problem, but streaming a film from a rival would count towards the cap – effectively meaning Telekom’s caps will discriminate in favor of its own products. And all services, activists argue, should be treated equally on the open Internet. Concerned citizens have already set up a Change.org petition that has garnered around 30,000 signatures at the time of writing, but now the German government itself has weighed in. This isn’t just a regulatory thing – the government is Telekom’s biggest shareholder, too.
benton.org/node/150364 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

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