Benton RSS Feed
Demand for international bandwidth grew 39 percent last year, and at a compounded annual rate of 53 percent between 2007 and 2012, according to Telegeography. The interesting bit here is that the growth is coming not just from developed regions, but all regions of the world. Cheaper mobile phones with access to the web are certainly a part of that demand growth in developing nations, while in more traditional technology markets, hotspots, larger applications and cloud computing are to blame. Whatever the reason for demand, carriers are responding accordingly, with new submarine cables connecting more countries than ever before.
We are all bandwidth hogs now
[Commentary] Does it matter who chairs the Federal Communications Commission? People might be forgiven if they think it doesn't, especially as President Obama considers a former corporate lobbyist to head the agency. Won't Rupert Murdoch, regardless of who's FCC chair, simply buy whatever media outlets he desires? Won't powerful companies like Comcast or AT&T just continue to dictate policies affecting internet speeds, access, costs, and content? Given repeated concessions to industry interests in recent years -- from weak net neutrality protections to approving the Comcast/NBCU mega-merger -- it's easy to assume the FCC has always been helpless to rein in the powerful media and telecom corporations that it's meant to regulate. But history suggests otherwise, reminding us of what could, and what should, be possible.
[Pickard is Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication]
A Fighter for the Public Interest at the FCC
[Commentary] While the next Federal Communications Commission chair needs to understand the ins and outs of technology and related law, that won't be enough. He or she must also understand that consumers are different. Different groups -- whether based on income, race, geography, or some other factor -- have different telecommunications needs. And we need a telecommunications system that works for everyone.
If we end up with an FCC chair who doesn't get this vital concept, much of America will be in serious trouble. Happily, there are candidates out there with both the legal/technical savvy and the gut-level knowledge of the diverse communities their decisions will affect. For example, here in California, we're lucky enough to have one of those individuals on our Public Utilities Commission -- Commissioner Catherine Sandoval. Sandoval has shown that she not only understands the complexities of telecommunications law and policy, she also understands that high-level policy decisions have real-world impacts which differ from community to community. And she is known for seeking input from communities before making a decision that impacts those communities -- a practice that is shockingly rare in telecommunications policy. This is not to say that there aren't other excellent candidates out there. But this sort of combination of legal and policy savvy with a community-level grasp of the human impacts of regulatory policies is the essential bottom line for any FCC nominee.
[Vissa is COO of the Greenlining Institute]
How to Pick an FCC Chair Who Gets It
A new tool can help organizations like federal agencies to better recruit cybersecurity talent and assess the skills of current cyber staff.
The new CyberTalent Assessment Tool, developed by the SANS Institute, helps recruiters and HR professionals have a better understanding of cyber job candidates, particularly in verifying their technical knowledge and comparing that knowledge against other applicants. It also can help HR professionals evaluate current cybersecurity staff to identify training needs or career development planning. “This is a very challenging space for the information security sector, as everyone knows about the lack of professionals in the industry,” said Tom Carver, director of SANS CyberTalent. “We’ve become aware of how critical this is now getting, and we realized quickly that we are in a unique position to help organizations assess job applicants and their existing staff.”
New Tool Can Help Agencies Assess Cyber Skills
One industry group is hoping to educate youngsters on how the technology and devices nearly all of them use actually work, in hopes of inspiring the next generation of IT professionals.
Todd Thibodeaux, CEO of CompTIA, said that the trade association is launching a new effort in hopes of filling the gaps that STEM programs in grades 9 through 12 are lacking: a better understanding of how IT works -- from smartphones to Facebook. “We’ve come into a period when use of the product and adoption of the product is the new geek, instead of understanding how the product and components of it work,” Thibodeaux said. “We have this generation of kids who aren’t quite as geeky as the ones who came before them.” A recent CompTIA survey of 1,002 teens and young adults found that nearly all respondents (97 percent) said they either love or like technology. Many teens also are more than just technology consumers, with 58 percent reporting that they help family members or friends with questions or troubleshooting computers, software and mobile devices. Still, while most teens have a love affair with technology, most aren’t interested in translating that love into a career, the study found.
Teaching Teens About Tech
Almost immediately after Monday's tragic bombings at the Boston Marathon, the city's cellular networks collapsed. As cell service sputtered under a surge of calls, runners were left in the dark, families couldn’t reach loved ones, and even investigators were stymied in making calls related to their pursuit of suspects. Admirably, Boston residents and businesses responded quickly by opening up Wi-Fi hotspots to help evacuees communicate with loved ones. But most, even the super-connected elite, were knocked offline. We shouldn't be surprised by the collapse of Boston's cellular networks. The same thing happens every time there is a crisis in a large city. On an average day, Americans make nearly 400,000 emergency 911 calls on their mobile phones. Yet during large-scale crises this vital lifeline is all-too-frequently cut off. The culprit is usually congestion.
The Shame of Boston's Wireless Woes
[Commentary] We all benefit when commercial companies compete for our business. Competing in the cellular market is unusual in that it depends on access to a limited resource: spectrum. No firm can enter the cellular market in Pittsburgh (except as a reseller) unless it can get Pittsburgh spectrum.
Carriers already offering service there also often want more spectrum when they expand capacity, as adding spectrum allows them to expand at a much lower cost. I hope that someday there will be a vibrant market for spectrum where firms can buy what they need when they need it, but at this point, spectrum suitable for cellular service can be hard to get. You can wait around for government to take spectrum that is currently used for something else, reallocate it for cellular use, and auction it, but those auctions are infrequent and unpredictable. You can try to get spectrum from a firm that already has some, but there are typically few holders of cellular spectrum in a given region, and they are all probably rival cellular carriers who would be happier if you just went away without offering a competing service.
There are solutions. To protect competition even as more diverse spectrum bands become available, we could adopt a screen that places different weights on each MHz of spectrum depending on the frequency. When it applies property taxes, government does not treat a square mile filled with Mississippi swampland the same as it treats a square mile filled with Manhattan skyscrapers. There is no reason it has to treat 10 MHz of spectrum at 900 MHz the same as 10 MHz of spectrum at 5 GHz in a spectrum cap or screen.
[Peha is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University]
Spectrum Policy Should Promote Competition
[Commentary] Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) introduced a bill designed to regulate firearms that cannot be found by metal detectors. The bill makes a passing reference to 3D printing, which is fine. But the rhetoric that Rep. Israel is using to promote the bill is both muddled and overblown, and focuses almost exclusively on 3D printing. This is a problem.
As part of the bill introduction process, Rep. Israel circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter to his fellow Members of Congress asking them to co-sponsor the legislation. The title of the letter? “Co-Sponsor Legislation to Ban 3D Printed Guns.” In the letter, he points to a CNN article about 3D printed guns as one that “describes the issue and intent of my legislation.” Later, he dramatically asks “what good will gun safety laws do if guns and gun parts can be printed in a basement using plans found online?” This is the worst kind of fear mongering. While 3D printed guns may get headlines, the details are bit less salacious. That’s part of the reason that the ATF – the government agency tasked with overseeing firearms – is monitoring them but is not overly concerned.
Meet Rep. Steve Israel – The Man Who Wants to Turn Congress Against 3D Printing
The television industry is changing fast -- and one of its pillars, bundling, may be about to fall.
"You've got to think of mainstream media as an old line army that's been marching along very, very well. They've been offering consumer exactly what they want to offer," says New York Times columnist David Carr, who adds that traditional media companies are being attacked from many fronts. "It isn't any one thing, it's insurgents coming over the hill," he says. Insurgents like Hopper, the controversial digital video recorder that fast forwards through ads so you don't have to. Of course, bundling helped pay for a lot of good content, and the ability of consumers to pick and choose what they want to watch more efficiently means a dip in profits. Then there are the new content creators, like Netflix, which has had success with its own version of the political thriller show "House of Cards".
Bundling no more? Netflix, Hopper chip away at traditional TV
[Commentary] The Internet has created an extraordinary new democratic forum for people around the world to express their opinions. It is revolutionizing global access to information: Today, more than 1 billion people worldwide have access to the Internet, and at current growth rates, 5 billion people -- about 70 percent of the world's population -- will be connected in five years. But this growth trajectory is not inevitable, and threats are mounting to the global spread of an open and truly "worldwide" web. The expansion of the open Internet must be allowed to continue: The mobile and social media revolutions are critical not only for democratic institutions' ability to solve the collective problems of a shrinking world, but also to a dynamic and innovative global economy that depends on financial transparency and the free flow of information.
The threats to the open Internet were on stark display at last December's World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, where the United States fought attempts by a number of countries -- including Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia -- to give a U.N. organization, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), new regulatory authority over the Internet. Ultimately, over the objection of the United States and many others, 89 countries voted to approve a treaty that could strengthen the power of governments to control online content and deter broadband deployment. We believe that the Internet should remain free of gatekeepers and that no entity -- public or private -- should be able to pick and choose the information web users can receive. That is a principle the United States adopted in the Federal Communications Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order. And it's why we are deeply concerned about arguments by some in the United States that broadband providers should be able to block, edit, or favor Internet traffic that travels over their networks, or adopt economic models similar to international sender pays. We must preserve the Internet as the most open and robust platform for the free exchange of information ever devised. Keeping the Internet open is perhaps the most important free speech issue of our time.
[Bollinger is president of Columbia University]
The Plot to Block Internet Freedom