Benton RSS Feed

April 25, 2013
Source 
telecompetitor
Author 
Gary Kim
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

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.

In the Coming Gigabit Era, Not All ISPs Can Win

Topics

Related Headlines

April 25, 2013
Source 
telecompetitor
Author 
Joan Engebretson
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

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.

Connect America Costs to be Based on Fiber-to-the-Premise

Topics

Related Headlines

April 25, 2013
Source 
InfoWorld
Author 
By Paul Venezia
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

[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.

Challenged by Google Fiber, ISPs opt to hasten their downfall

Topics

Related Headlines

April 25, 2013
Source 
GigaOm
Author 
Stacey Higginbotham
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Competition is grand. With Google planning to build out a fiber-to-the-home network in Austin, Texas next year, the local incumbent broadband providers are tweaking their models.

AT&T has threatened to build its own fiber to the home, gigabit network provided it gets the same concessions from state and city officials that Google did. And Time Warner Cable? Well, it’s offering Austin subscribers free Wi-Fi. Time Warner said that existing customers with its standard cable package or above can log onto a city-wide Wi-Fi network the cable company is building out. Why now? Time Warner cites Google Fiber’s plans as a reason to kick its free Wi-Fi project into gear.

Time Warner Cable sees the Google Fiber threat and offers Austin free Wi-Fi

Topics

Related Headlines

April 25, 2013
Source 
Hollywood Reporter
Author 
Georg Szalai
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Aereo doesn't have a compelling value proposition for consumers, Time Warner chairman and CEO Jeff Bewkes said. "If law allows it, which I don't think they will, they will offer [three to four] free-to-air channels. They are free already. All they are doing is charging [people] $8 per month to get them on-demand." Also, broadcast networks' share of total TV viewership has declined over the years, he also highlighted. Appearing at a media and entertainment conference, he also one again shrugged off concerns about the challenge that online video streaming service Netflix poses to his company's HBO.

Time Warner CEO: 'Nobody' Will Pay for Aereo Service

Topics

Related Headlines

April 25, 2013
Source 
ModernHealthcare.com
Author 
Joe Carlson
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

Simply knowing all the rules could prevent many of the problems plaguing data security and privacy among healthcare providers and insurers. Nearly one-third of the 980 problems that HHS' Office for Civil Rights uncovered during privacy and data-security audits of 115 healthcare providers and insurers happened because the organizations were not aware of all of the requirements facing them, according to root-cause analyses performed by HHS contractor KPMG.

“You probably don't know what you don't know,” OCR Senior Adviser Linda Sanches told a crowd of healthcare lawyers and compliance officials Tuesday during the Health Care Compliance Association's annual Compliance Institute. Sanches said the findings show that many healthcare companies could benefit from re-reading the rules and regulations in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, or HITECH, Act that widen HIPAA privacy and data-security protections on patients' protected health information.

Audits find organizations unaware of new data, privacy rules

Topics

Related Headlines

April 25, 2013
Source 
GigaOm
Author 
David Meyer
Coverage Type 
Lauren Frayer

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.

Deutsche Telekom’s ‘anti-net-neutrality’ plans alarm German government

Topics

Related Headlines

Statement of Charles Benton on Passing of Bob Edgar

Submitted by benton on Thu, 04/25/2013 - 12:32

The Benton Foundation mourns the loss of Bob Edgar, the President and CEO of Common Cause, who died prematurely on Tuesday. He was a gentle and determined advocate for justice and human rights. I first met him in connection with his leadership in fighting for the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam, both our soldiers and the Vietnamese people. It was one of his proudest accomplishments as a Congressman from Pennsylvania.

We applaud his understanding of the interrelationship between media and democracy and his commitment to Michael Copps, FCC Commissioner between 2001 and 2011, as the leader of a new unit at Common Cause to advocate for a deeper public understanding of the relationship between media reform and democracy reform. Bob created a new vision for Common Cause and leaves a great legacy for the organization.

We will miss Bob and send our condolences to his family.

Benton: Preserve Vital Lifeline

Submitted by benton on Thu, 04/25/2013 - 08:28

On April 25, 2013, the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee held a hearing, The Lifeline Fund: Money Well Spent?, to examine the Universal Service Fund’s Lifeline program which provides discounts on starting and maintaining telecommunications service for eligible consumers in need. The Lifeline Program is designed to ensure that quality telecommunications services are available to eligible consumers at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.

The following statement can be attributed to Charles Benton, Chairman of the Benton Foundation.

For the past several years, the Benton Foundation has committed significant staff resources to help inform the reform and modernization of the Lifeline program, which 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. Our aim is to engage organizations whose constituencies can and should benefit most from programs like Lifeline, and whose voices are not often heard. We are gratified, therefore, by the strong show of support demonstrated through letters submitted for today’s House Communications and Technology subcommittee hearing on Lifeline.

The Lifeline program provides modest, affordable, essential phone service to low-income households and is literally a “lifeline” to jobs, emergency service, medical care, childcare, the school system, social services, family and community. Benton joined a number of public interest advocates in reminding Congress about the facts of Lifeline.

Lifeline Provides Affordable No-Frills Voice Service: The Lifeline program has been in existence since 1985 and evolved to include wireless service in 2005. The current Lifeline program provides a discount on voice service via traditional landline local service or wireless service. Carriers are approved by states or the FCC to participate in the Lifeline program. The wireline Lifeline phone service provides a discounted rate on traditional phone service to the home. Wireless Lifeline is an evolving product in terms of number of minutes covered by the $9.25 per month covered by the Lifeline program. Typically it is a modest prepaid service requiring no deposit, often including a free handset and 250 minutes a month (a little over 4 hours of phone service a month for incoming and outgoing calls). Lifeline households can purchase additional minutes to add to their plan. The current Lifeline program does not cover data, but there is a small Lifeline broadband pilot that was part of the recent reform decision and is rolling out now.

Lifeline Enhances the Network Effect: The communications network has more value the more people are connected to it and access is increasingly important. Expectation of instantaneous connection has become the societal norm for those who can readily afford smart phones and broadband connectivity via multiple devices. It is increasingly an expectation of employers to readily reach employees or perspective employees. Yet, having reliable access to a wireline and wireless connection is not readily affordable for households of modest means and the Lifeline program only covers one phone service per household. Even with its limitations, Lifeline plays an important and unique role in the provision of basic essential voice connectivity for low-income households.

The Importance of the Lifeline Program: The Lifeline program provides no-frills basic phone service to households at or below 135% of poverty (around $26,400 a year for a family of 3) and households participating in needs-based assistance programs such as Medicaid, SNAP SSI, Public Housing Assistance, LIHEAP, TANF or the National School Lunch Free Lunch Program. Recent surveys of wireless Lifeline customers show:

  • Around half are over 45 to 50 years of age, with a substantial percent over sixty.
  • Veterans participate.
  • Consumers with disabilities participate.
  • A large percent are unemployed or underemployed and use their Lifeline service to find work.
  • Lifeline service provides access to healthcare.
  • Lifeline service provides an introduction to wireless service.

Low-Income households move more often than non-low–income households: It is vital that Lifeline remain technology neutral and include wireless service, particularly because of the high levels of geographic mobility. Certain populations move more frequently than others. According to the US Census, over half of households below poverty moved and almost two-thirds of renters moved within a 5-year period. African-American, Asian and Hispanic or Latino households move more often than white households. The unemployed move more often than the employed. Over half of separated households and 40% of divorced households move within a 5-year period compared to 18% for married households.

Low-income households resort to doubling-up and using shelters for housing: Scenarios where more than one eligible household can live at the same postal address: A sad reality for households with limited means is an inability to afford housing. The bleak economic effects of the recession resulted in an 11.4% increase in the number of people doubling up between 2007 and 2010 (affecting 22 million households). There are also group housing situations, such as single-room occupancies (SROs), nursing homes, group homes for those with disabilities, and domestic violence shelters, where the dwelling units may not have their own US Postal service address although the occupants are separate households. These are among the most fragile of low-income households and a group most in need of wireless Lifeline service to achieve self-sufficiency or independence.

Lifeline service is a lifeline for the working poor and the unemployed: A substantial number of Lifeline participants are unemployed or underemployed. A stable phone number is essential for a low-wage worker to pick up extra shifts or jobs. Phone service is also important to coordinate transportation to and from work and to notify an employer if work will be missed due to an emergency, thus helping to maintain employment. If the worker has young children, the phone is important for coordinating childcare logistics and to remain in contact in case the child is sick or in an emergency.

Lifeline enhances the efficient operation of other assistance programs: Increasingly social services supports are accessed electronically, through centralized call centers and internet sites. While the Lifeline program is limited to voice service, this provides access to critical programs, allowing checking on the status of benefits, re-certification of program eligibility, obtaining notice of trainings, interviews, work assignments, etc. It is worthy of investigation to determine whether the currently offered 250 minutes (a little over 4 hours a month) is adequate, given this trend in program delivery, especially where wait times can be long and call backs are common. Other agencies see the value of the Lifeline program in their administration of services.

Lifeline also helps the medical community provide care: Health care providers treating low-income patients can find it difficult to follow-up with their patients without reliable phone service. A pediatrician who practices in the inner-city and whose patients are very young and fragile described why the Lifeline service is so important. When she treats a 2-year old with a congenital heart condition, developmental delay and a failure to thrive, she needs to be able to reach the parents to arrange for medical transport and delivery of special formula, and ensure that medications are taken as prescribed to avoid serious complications. The ability of parents of medically fragile young children to reach her immediately when there is a problem can mean the difference between treating a developing pneumonia with medication or treating the child in the pediatric intensive care unit with severe respiratory distress.

Lifeline is essential in emergency situations: The no-frills Lifeline voice service is important for protecting public health and safety. This includes the ability to call 911 for help in an emergency as well as the ability to be contacted (e.g., the ability of the school to contact a parent or guardian when a child is sick or injured). Increasingly communities are relying on reverse 911 to warn residents in emergencies.

The Lifeline Program has Undergone Serious Reforms That Should be Allowed to Play Out: The recent Lifeline reform has put the program on more secure footing and made it more uniform between states. The FCC eliminated the Link Up program and ramped down toll limitation service. The Link Up program was created to help cover the cost of establishing a wireline connection in a home and toll limitation was designed to avoid expensive long distance charges that could make the phone bill unaffordable. The FCC tightened enrollment procedures for consumers. Obtaining and retaining Lifeline service has become more burdensome for consumers which may well account for enrollment drop-off. Lifeline applicants must provide documentation of eligibility (e.g., proof of SNAP participation) before being approved for Lifeline service. Consumers must also re-certify eligibility annually or they will be de-enrolled from the program. Applicants must also provide their date of birth, partial social security number in addition to their address for a duplicates check. If the address has other Lifeline households, then the applicant must fill out a Household worksheet to determine eligibility. There are a number of certifications made under penalty of perjury under these new reforms.

Benton believes that the Federal Communications Commission has taken very important steps in addressing waste, fraud and abuse, and should continue to do so. But we stand with our colleagues in the civil rights, social justice and aging networks in urging that Lifeline continue to provide low-income consumers connections to vital telecommunications services.

The Benton Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting communication in the public interest. These comments reflect the institutional view of the Foundation and, unless obvious from the text, are not intended to reflect the views of individual Foundation officers, directors, or advisors.

April 25, 2013 (ObamaPhone Day)

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013

The Lifeline Program (preview below), Diversity and the FCC’s Next Agenda highlight a busy day http://benton.org/calendar/2013-04-25/


TELECOM
   'Obama phone' facts still a hang-up in Washington
   Public Interest Advocates Defend Lifeline Program

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   Senate votes 75-22 to advance online sales tax bill
   CBO Scores Marketplace Fairness Act: no impact on the federal budget - research [links to web]
   The fight over Internet sales taxes - analysis
   Direct Marketing Association Urges Senate To Reject Online Tax Bill [links to web]
   Internet Sales Taxes Are Inevitable - op-ed
   Homeland Security Chairman to develop cybersecurity bill [links to web]
   Coming Soon: Defense’s New 100 Gigabit Supercomputer Network [links to web]

SPECTRUM/WIRELESS
   Preliminary Findings on Federal Relocation Costs and Spectrum Auction Revenues - research
   CPB study to examine public policy implications of spectrum auctions
   FCC Static Will Distort the Spectrum Auction
   MetroPCS Shareholders Approve T-Mobile USA Merger [links to web]
   Why NASA is Firing Cell Phones Into Space [links to web]
   Verizon eyes $100 billion bid for Vodafone's Wireless stake

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA
   What's Really Happening With Obama's Voter Data
   Corporate Donations and the SEC - editorial [links to web]

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
   What’s the White House Policy on Neutralizing Damaging Tweets?
   E-mail Trove Is Big Job for Bush Library [links to web]
   Civic Engagement in the Digital Age - research

OWNERSHIP
   Could the billionaire Koch brothers buy the Tribune newspapers? - analysis [links to web]
   Koch News Is Bad News - op-ed

EDUCATION
   Why iPads? It’s a question of innovation [links to web]

PRIVACY
   Updating an E-Mail Law From the Last Century
   The Digital Ad Industry Gets Dressed Down in Washington

CONTENT
   Preventing Misinformation from Spreading through Social Media [links to web]
   Have an Unhealthily Close Relationship with Google? Diversify Your Data [links to web]
   House Judiciary Chairman to launch sweeping review of US copyright law [links to web]
   Hoax Won't Deter Tweeting [links to web]
   E-mail Trove Is Big Job for Bush Library [links to web]

TELEVISION
   A La Carte TV Will Never Be - editorial
   Cable: A Recession-Proof Industry - analysis [links to web]

STORIES FROM ABROAD
   Google makes concessions to EU antitrust body

MORE ONLINE
   Wrapports explores printer alternatives to Tribune [links to web]
   Disruption in media biz unlocks opportunities [links to web]
   RTDNA joins groups to oppose California bills - press release [links to web]

back to top

TELECOM

OBAMA PHONE FACTS
[SOURCE: Politico, AUTHOR: Jessica Meyers]
The “Obama phone” debate is still ringing in Washington — as is a bad connection with some of the facts. Lifeline, the controversial phone subsidy program that snagged attention during the first Obama administration, has landed back in the spotlight. Critics then accused the White House of dishing out free cellphones to the poor. Now they’re questioning whether reforms put in place by the Federal Communications Commission to tackle rampant misuse will actually work. The false rumors that started circling nearly four years ago continue to haunt the program as opponents push a welfare state narrative along the lines of Obamacare. A Republican-led House bill with 42 co-sponsors would nearly gut the federal program. An amendment in the recent Senate budget debate tried to eliminate funding entirely. And a House Communications subcommittee hearing Thursday will dissect its worth.
benton.org/node/150342 | Politico
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCATES DEFEND LIFELINE PROGRAM
[SOURCE: National Consumer Law Center, AUTHOR: Olivia Wein]
In a letter to House Communications Subcommittee leaders Greg Walden (R-OR) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA), a dozen public interest organizations urged the panel to allow a recent round of reforms to take hold before precipitously altering this the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program which provides modest, affordable, essential phone service to low-income households. The letter was signed by the National Consumer Law Center, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, the Benton Foundation, the Center of Media Justice, Connecticut Legal Services, the Low Income Utility Advocacy Project, the Legal Services Advocacy Project, New Jersey SHARES, Inc, the Ohio Poverty Law Center, Open Access Connections, Pro Seniors, and Springwire. The groups argue that the Lifeline program:
Provides Affordable No-Frills Voice Service
Enhances the Network Effect
Is a lifeline for the working poor and the unemployed
Enhances the efficient operation of other assistance programs
Helps the medical community provide care
Is essential in emergency situations
Has Undergone Serious Reforms That Should be Allowed to Play Out
Recent surveys of wireless Lifeline customers show:
Around half are over 45 to 50 years of age, with a substantial percent over sixty.
Veterans participate.
Consumers with disabilities participate.
A large percent are unemployed or underemployed and use their Lifeline service to find work.
Lifeline service provides access to healthcare.
Lifeline service provides an introduction to wireless service.
http://benton.org/node/150317
National Consumer Law Center
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

SENATE AGAIN ADVANCES ONLINE SALES TAX BILL
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Ramsey Cox]
The Senate took a second procedural step on a bill that would allow states to collect online sales tax. In a 75-22 vote, the Senate proceeded to The Marketplace Fairness Act, S. 743, which would empower states to collect taxes on purchases made online by consumers in their states. The latest vote suggests supporters of the bill are likely to see it win approval in the Senate later this week. Its path through the House, despite the support of many GOP governors, is less clear. Senators in states without a sales tax voiced opposition to the bill, arguing it would burden retailers in their states by forcing them to collect taxes for other state governments. “This legislation would impose new burdens on small businesses not only in New Hampshire but actually across the country,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) said. “Small businesses across the country — not just in non-sales tax states, such as New Hampshire, but small businesses across the country — will see their tax burdens increase.” Those supporting the bill have called it a “states’ rights bill” because it would allow states — many of which are battling large budget deficits — to collect the revenue they need to fund state programs.
benton.org/node/150311 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


THE FIGHT OVER INTERNET SALES TAXES
[SOURCE: Columbia Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Ryan Chittum]
We’re more than 20 years into the mainstream Web era—20 years!—and Congress is finally seriously considering force retailers to collect sales taxes online, ending a loophole that has given online-only retailers an unfair advantage over physical retailers. Thanks to a catalog company’s 1992 Supreme Court victory, states can’t require retailers that don’t have a physical presence within their borders to collect sales taxes on transactions done living in the state. That ruling predated the Mosaic browser by less than eight months, and combined with inaction at the federal level, it has given online retailers a serious leg up (as much as 10 percent) over their bricks-and-mortar competition. When Congress considered legislation to fix the problem back in the (original) dot com bubble, opponents argued that taxes would kill the baby in the cradle. When online retailers turned into Baby Huey—and Amazon is the poster child here—they argued that it would be a logistical burden to collect sales taxes in the thousands of different localities—never mind that the Barnes & Nobles and Targets of the world have already had to do that with their online sales. Now Amazon, having lost several battles with states over collecting taxes, and wanting to expand its physical presence to speed up its delivery, says it’s on board with a federal law allowing states.
benton.org/node/150309 | Columbia Journalism Review
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


INTERNET SALES TAXES ARE INEVITABLE
[SOURCE: Slate, AUTHOR: Matthew Yglesias]
[Commentary] Online sales taxes is an issue in which the hyper-polarized politics of the 21st century give way to old-school deal-making, pragmatism, and parochialism. The issue at hand relates to what Tim Fernholz calls large-scale “accidental Internet tax evasion.” Online shoppers have been engaged in it for the past 10–15 years. Most states and some municipalities in the United States depend on retail sales taxes for revenue. And if you look up those laws, you’ll find that in theory you’re generally supposed to pay sales taxes to the state where you live on everything you buy even if you got it from another state or bought it on the Internet. In practice, of course, nobody does this. Until recently, cross-border shopping wasn’t economically significant, and no enforcement mechanisms existed to compel you to pay taxes back in your home state. Then came the Internet. States are seeing their tax base melt away. Enter the Marketplace Fairness Act, enthusiastically pushed by big-box retail chains and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). There’s a lot of clout behind taxing Internet sales. Even if it doesn’t pass the House this year, it’s hard to see the no-taxation coalition holding up in the long run. As a bonus, it even makes sense on the merits! E-commerce is great, but it shouldn’t just be a vehicle for tax evasion.
benton.org/node/150307 | Slate
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SPECTRUM/WIRELESS

FEDERAL SPECTRUM RELOCATION
[SOURCE: Government Accountability Office, AUTHOR: Mark Goldstein]
The Government Accountability Office was asked to review the costs to relocate federal spectrum users and revenues from spectrum auctions. This testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services addresses GAO’s preliminary findings on 1) estimated and actual relocation costs and revenue from the previously auctioned 1710-1755 MHz band, 2) the extent to which DOD followed best practices to prepare its preliminary cost estimate for vacating the 1755-1850 MHz band, and 3) existing government or industry forecasts for revenue from an auction of the 1755-1850 MHz band. GAO reviewed relevant reports; interviewed Department of Defense, Federal Communications Commission, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and Office of Management and Budget officials and industry stakeholders; and analyzed the extent to which DOD's preliminary cost estimate met best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide (Cost Guide). DOD's preliminary cost estimate for relocating systems from the 1755-1850 MHz band substantially or partially met GAO's best practices, but changes in key assumptions may affect future costs. Adherence with GAO's Cost Guide helps to minimize the risk of cost overruns, missed deadlines, and unmet performance targets. GAO found that DOD's estimate substantially met the comprehensive and well-documented best practices. [GAO-13-563T]
benton.org/node/150315 | Government Accountability Office
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


CPB AND INCENTIVE SPECTRUM AUCTIONS
[SOURCE: Current, AUTHOR: Dru Sefton]
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has initiated a six-month research project on the upcoming broadcast spectrum auctions that will culminate with publication of a white paper. The study will examine multiple complex issues surrounding the auctions, such as preservation of universal service of public broadcasting to all Americans; the role of Community Service Grant policy in spectrum discussions; how much noncommercial spectrum may be necessary in large and overlap markets; the financial implications for individual stations as well as the system as a whole; and station responsibilities to their communities. The intended audience for the paper, said Mark Erstling, s.v.p. system development, will be the CPB Board, station boards and management “who are making the tough decisions” regarding the future of their spectrum; policymakers in state and federal government and other key stakeholders; and the public. One significant reason for doing the white paper, noted CPB COO Vincent Curren, “is for CPB to play an influential role to help influence policy discussions at the FCC. They are aware of the importance of maintaining universal public media service; we are confident there is an understanding of that at the staff level,” Curren said. “But for the full FCC, it’s helpful to have a report from us saying this is critical to pay attention to.”
benton.org/node/150305 | Current
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


INCENTIVE AUCTIONS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Preston Padden]
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission is considering modifications to the statutory plan to auction off spectrum that could cause the auction to fail. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is intended to obtain 120 megahertz of spectrum currently allocated to TV and auction it off to wireless carriers—giving these carriers more capacity to complete cellphone calls and enhance Internet access. In most markets, the FCC will be able to simply "repack" the existing TV stations' six MHZ of spectrum into tighter blocks, freeing up spectrum space to be auctioned off. But in the biggest, most congested urban markets (such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Los Angeles), there are too many TV stations to get the needed spectrum through repacking. In those markets, the legislation calls for the FCC to pay stations to go off the air. If the auctions are conducted as Congress envisioned, they will entice broadcasters to sell their spectrum and yield $7 billion in surplus revenue to fund the planned First Responders Network and apply the rest toward reducing the federal deficit. The success of the congressional plan crucially depends on attracting, through the prospect of large payments, enough TV stations to surrender their channels. And that requires a robustly competitive auction among wireless carriers. Unfortunately, instead of conducting a straight-up, unbiased auction to recover TV channels, the FCC has proposed a "scoring system" that assigns different prices to TV stations based on the opinions of FCC staff regarding the value of those stations. [Padden is executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition, a group of more than 40 major-market TV stations potentially willing to participate in the FCC's Incentive Auction]
benton.org/node/150337 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


VERIZON-VODAFONE
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Soyoung Kim]
Verizon Communications has hired advisers to prepare a possible $100 billion cash and stock bid to take full control of Verizon Wireless from its partner Vodafone, two people familiar with the matter said. Verizon, which already owns 55 percent of the company, has not put a proposal to Vodafone yet but it has hired both banking and legal advisers for a possible bid, the sources said. Verizon, which has made little secret of its wish to buy out its British joint venture partner, has ramped up the pressure in recent months, and London-based analysts and investors interpreted the latest move as an attempt to force Vodafone in to serious talks. The sources said Verizon was now ready to push aggressively for a deal. It hopes to start discussions with Vodafone soon for a friendly agreement but is prepared to take a bid public if the British company does not engage, one of the sources added.
benton.org/node/150333 | Reuters
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA

VOTER DATA
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Kate Kaye]
It's conventional wisdom that Democrats lucky enough to get the Obama campaign's data files are going to have a massive marketing advantage in upcoming elections. And when Organizing for Action, President Barack Obama's data-savvy post-2012 campaign operation was established in January, it seemed to answer the question on every politico's mind: Where will the data go? But a direct transfer of the coveted Obama data from campaign to nonprofit is not so simple -- not by a long shot. Exactly where the Obama 2012 data lives is complex, in some cases still undetermined, and mostly obscured. The receptacle for some of the information -- which included voter-file data, social-media data, ad interaction and measurement information, email data, polling data, volunteer-profile data and competitive intelligence on GOP contender Mitt Romney's media buys -- remains unsettled in part because Federal Election Commission rules on coordination and campaign financing prevent the old Obama for America campaign from porting everything lock-stock-and-barrel to the new OFA that spun out of it.
benton.org/node/150303 | AdAge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

WHAT'S THE WHITE HOUSE POLICY ON NEUTRALIZING DAMAGING TWEETS?
[SOURCE: nextgov, AUTHOR: Aliya Sternstein]
The Obama Administration's social media outreach apparently does not extend to countering market-moving falsified tweets about the White House. A hacked Associated Press Twitter account informed the public that blasts at the White House had harmed the President. The Dow tumbled for a bit in response. The Homeland Security Department noticed the bogus tweet -- or should have given that DHS admittedly monitors Twitter and other public social media to identify threatening situations. Yet there was radio silence from the Administration online. Sure, a few minutes of economic insecurity isn’t worth issuing a terrorist alert tweet. But federal agencies are supposed to be scored on social media responsiveness, according to new public engagement guidelines. There were no assurances President Barack Obama was safe on the various White House Twitter accounts or on the White House website. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney took to traditional media, telling reporters at a briefing: "The President is fine. I was just with him."
benton.org/node/150298 | nextgov
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE
[SOURCE: Pew Internet and American Life Project, AUTHOR: Aaron Smith]
Social networking sites have grown more important in recent years as a venue for political involvement, learning, and debate. Overall, 39% of all American adults took part in some sort of political activity on a social networking site during the 2012 campaign. This means that more Americans are now politically active on social networking sites (SNS) than used them at all as recently as the 2008 election campaign. At that point, 26% of the population used a social networking site of any kind. The growth in several specific behaviors between 2008 and 2012 illustrates the increasing importance of SNS as places where citizens can connect with political causes and issues:
In 2012, 17% of all adults posted links to political stories or articles on social networking sites, and 19% posted other types of political content. That is a six-fold increase from the 3% of adults who posted political stories or links on these sites in 2008.
In 2012, 12% of all adults followed or friended a political candidate or other political figure on a social networking site, and 12% belonged to a group on a social networking site involved in advancing a political or social issue. That is a four-fold increase from the 3% of adults who took part in these behaviors in 2008.
benton.org/node/150331 | Pew Internet and American Life Project
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

KOCH NEWS IS BAD NEWS
[SOURCE: The Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Timothy Karr]
[Commentary] Over the years, Charles and David Koch have financed a vast organizing network, including Americans for Prosperity, that amplifies their extreme anti-environment, anti-labor and anti-democracy views. They've bankrolled a constellation of think tanks, including the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute and the Mercatus Center, which churn out research designed to prop up the Kochs' position that corporations should not be regulated. But that isn't enough for the Koch brothers. According to the New York Times, the Kochs want a national media presence as well. That's especially bad news for anyone living in the communities these papers serve. American humorist and writer Peter Finnley Dunne wrote that journalism's central purpose is "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." But Koch-controlled media outlets would likely cover up corporate and political abuse -- not expose it. And they'd not only cover up but also promote injustice. The Kochs are supporters of the American Legislative Exchange Council (or ALEC), which was active last year pushing legislation to disenfranchise voters. The legislation was insidiously designed to remove voters from based on race and income. While more than 40 companies have withdrawn their support from ALEC -- as a result of the pressure campaigns by groups including Center for Media and Democracy, ColorofChange.org and Common Cause -- the Kochs are holding out.
benton.org/node/150300 | Huffington Post, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PRIVACY

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Somini Sengupta]
Congress is now set to clarify electronic privacy rules, bringing a quarter-century-old law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) in line with the Internet age. On April 25, the Senate Judiciary Committee will start deliberating a measure that would require the government to get a search warrant, issued by a judge, to gain access to personal e-mails and all other electronic content held by a third-party service provider. The current statute requires a warrant for e-mails that are less than six months old. But it lets the authorities gain access to older communications — or bizarrely, e-mails that have already been opened — with just a subpoena and no judicial review. The law governs the privacy of practically everything entrusted to the Internet — family photos stored with a Web service, journal entries kept online, company documents uploaded to the cloud, and the flurry of e-mails exchanged every day. The problem is that it was written when the cloud was just vapor in the sky. Silicon Valley companies as well as advocacy groups from the political left and right have been lobbying for change for many years, and reform legislation seems to be gaining broad political support.
benton.org/node/150340 | New York Times | The Hill
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


DO NOT TRACK HEARING
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Natasha Singer]
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) lambasted the digital advertising industry for failing to voluntarily honor privacy requests from online consumers called “Do Not Track” signals. Negotiations between advertising groups and privacy advocates have bogged down over basic questions of how exactly to define, standardize and respond to the privacy signals. Although major browsers now allow users to express their preferences about online tracking, very few companies now honor browsers’ don’t track me flags. Frustrated by the seemingly slow progress, Sen Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, grilled industry representatives at a hearing about Do Not Track. Do Not Track “is still just an idea, not a reality,” said Chairman Rockefeller. “What exactly is the holdup?” Although the industry ad choices program does put some limits on its members’ use of consumer data — restricting it to activities like fraud prevention and security — Chairman Rockefeller says the industry’s exceptions for market research and other uses promote unfettered data collection about consumers’ online activities. The senator introduced a bill in February that would direct the Federal Trade Commission to create standards for Do Not Track mechanisms as well as develop rules that prohibit companies for collecting data about consumers who opt out of tracking. “I do not want to hear assertions that the current self-regulatory scheme fulfills Do Not Track requests,” Chairman Rockefeller said.
benton.org/node/150338 | New York Times | The Hill | B&C | AdWeek | Associated Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION
   A La Carte TV Will Never Be - editorial

A LA CARTE WILL NEVER BE
[SOURCE: Variety, AUTHOR: Andrew Wallenstein]
[Commentary] The prospect of consumers getting the ability to choose which cable channels they want has proven to be a remarkably resilient fantasy. Maybe that’s because TV executives can’t seem to resist giving the proposition just enough attention to make it seem possible. Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam described the a la carte business model at the National Assn. of Broadcasters confab earlier this month as “a novel way that could help protect subscriptions in the long run.” An unprecedented antitrust suit filed by Cablevision against Viacom has also renewed speculation. But now is as good a time as any to point out the absurdity inherent in a debate that has raged from Congress to coffee shops going back a decade. A-la-carte channel choice no longer makes a lick of sense in the age of on-demand viewing. A post-bundle world would require a much different environment than the one a la carte fans envision, one that probably draws more on title-oriented platforms like Netflix or iTunes than on TV’s linear lineage.
benton.org/node/150332 | Variety
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

GOOGLE CONCESIONS
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Juergen Baetz]
Google is offering major concessions on how it displays search results in Europe — including a better labeling of its own promoted content and displaying links to its competitors — to appease concerns it might be abusing its dominant market position, the European Union's antitrust body said. Google has offered to more clearly label search results stemming from its own services such as YouTube, Google Maps or its shopping search function, allowing users to distinguish between natural search results and others promoted by Google. It also agreed to display some search results from its competitors and links to their services, the EU Commission said. The Commission is now proposing a market test of the concessions for a month as a test run. That would give competitors the chance to say whether they deem them sufficient. Once the Commission accepts them — revised or not — they become legally binding for the company for the next five years. Google has worked closely with the Commission on the concessions' design until formally submitting them earlier this month.
benton.org/node/150329 | Associated Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

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