Benton RSS Feed
A new study by mobile security vendor Lookout finds that 62 percent of American households have at least one old cellphone lying about. Some 10 percent of households have four or more old devices stuffed into a drawer somewhere. Reasons for hanging on to the redundant phones vary, but they include not knowing what to do with the devices, concerns about security, and the fact that some information remains only on that device.
No Shocker: Typical American Household Full of Old Cellphones
When Barack Obama ran for his first term, he was already clearly on-record stating his opposition to further media industry consolidation and his support for reasserting the public interest.
In his September 20, 2007 statement for a Federal Communications Commission public hearing in Chicago, then-Senator Obama said: “I believe that the nation’s media ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest. We should be doing much more to encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and establish greater clarity in the public interest obligations of broadcasters occupying the nation’s spectrum.”
I wasn’t surprised at Obama’s commitment to more diverse, local, and competitive media, because in a July 19, 2006 letter to the FCC, he and Senator John Kerry had written: “We strongly believe that the FCC should address the issues of minority and small business media ownership before taking up the wider media ownership issue.”
Seven months later, on February 5, 2007, Senators Obama and Richard Durbin wrote the Commission: “We are concerned that meaningful participation in the media marketplace is becoming increasingly dependent on the kind of access to capital that only large media conglomerates can generate.” They went on: “In the case of minority ownership of broadcast outlets, as Commissioner Copps has pointed out, there has been no improvement in the level of minority ownership…. The number of African-American stations since 1998 has fallen 30 percent.” They closed by emphasizing “that broadcast ownership rules directly implicate core American values such as diversity, localism, representation, and a competitive marketplace of ideas.”
On October 22, 2007, Senator Obama wrote to then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin: “I object to the agency moving forward to allow greater consolidation in the media market without first fully understanding how that would limit opportunities for minority, small business, and women owned firms.” He closed with a plea to the Commission to stop the mad rush, suggesting that instead of voting on Chairman Martin’s proposal to dramatically loosen the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, the FCC should “complete a proceeding on the responsibilities that broadcasters have to the communities in which they operate.”
President Obama’s first term has come and almost gone. Important national priorities have been tackled and major legislative and executive milestones have been achieved. Reforming media policy was not among them. Now comes the second term and the opportunity to deliver on his earlier approach by tackling the declining state of America’s news and information ecosystem. This essential infrastructure of democracy has suffered the same kind of collapse as so much of America’s physical infrastructure—witness the sorry state of our bridges, highways, streets, public transportation, airports and public utilities. So, too, in media. Private sector consolidation led to the closing of hundreds of newsrooms and the firing of thousands of investigative reporters who should be combing the beats to hold the powerful accountable. Instead journalism has been hollowed out as badly as those rust-belt steel mills. Investigative journalism hangs by a slender thread, replaced by vapid infotainment, bloviating talking heads, and a dry well of facts and real-world analysis.
The public sector is at least equally culpable because government—especially the FCC where I served for more than a decade—blessed just about every media merger and acquisition that came before it. Then it proceeded, over the better part of a generation, to eviscerate almost all of the specific public interest guidelines that had been put in place over many years to ensure that the people’s airwaves actually serve the people.
Fast forward to 2012. Oh, wait! Are we back in 2007? Isn’t the current FCC about to vote on pretty much the same proposal loosening the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule that the majority voted for back in 2007? Shockingly, the new proposal goes even beyond the 2007 proceeding by actually permitting more radio-TV consolidation, too—putting diversity-owned radio stations at greater risk of take-over by the media giants.
The pending proposal does all this without coming close to meeting the demands of the Third Circuit federal court that refused to accept the 2007 rules (and a prior 2003 attempt to loosen the ownership rules, too) largely because those rules failed to deal with the lack of minority ownership. What has changed in the interim, other than the statistics of minority ownership getting even worse? Does the Commission really need the court to tell it “no” yet another time? That would be three—a strike-out where I come from. Let’s be clear here: the proposal currently before the Commission would make it decidedly more difficult for minorities and women to have their own stations.
Instead of hurrying in the wrong direction, wouldn’t the Commission’s time be better utilized by considering (and actually voting on) some of the dozens of recommendations that have been put before it by civil rights and public interest groups to establish programs and incentives to encourage minority and female ownership? It is time for the FCC to take a deep breath, change direction, and get on with the huge challenge of encouraging a diverse media environment that serves all of our citizens and that nourishes a thriving civic dialogue.
President Obama is less than half-way through his Presidency. I believe he understands that some of the issues he cares about have not yet had a fair hearing. I am not ready to believe that he will close the door on this issue that goes to the very ability of our media to nourish and sustain the kind of informed civic dialogue on which the course of American self-government depends.
But, just to be sure, let’s remind him—and the Commission—how important We, the People, believe this is.
Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009. His years at the Commission have been highlighted by his strong defense of "the public interest"; outreach to what he calls "non-traditional stakeholders" in the decisions of the FCC, particularly minorities, Native Americans and the various disabilities communities; and actions to stem the tide of what he regards as excessive consolidation in the nation's media and telecommunications industries. In 2012, former Commissioner Copps joined Common Cause to lead its Media and Democracy Reform Initiative.
Syria disappeared from the Internet. Everyone knows that by now. But one fact that didn’t resonate quite as readily in the first reports is how quickly it happened. At the order of someone — presumably an official within the government of President Bashar al-Assad — an entire nation’s communications infrastructure ceased to function within about four minutes.
When you remember the basic fundamental truths about the Internet — the part about how it was designed to be used in the event of a nuclear war and thus has redundancy and survivability in mind — one can’t help but wonder how such a thing could happen. It comes down to control, and creating a single, easily accessible choke point run by loyal people. Every single Internet connection in Syria is funneled through a single government agency that authorizes them all — the Syrian Telecommunications Establishment — and indeed all of them are run out of the same building. Today, the folks at Renesys, who were the first to notice Syria’s government-ordered outage (for it could be nothing other than that), have tackled the question of how readily what has happened in Syria — and in Libya and Egypt before it — could happen in other countries. Here’s its map. Countries where there’s a significant risk — speaking logistically, not necessarily politically — of a government-ordered shutdown are shown in darker green. The lighter the green, the lower the risk.
Syrian Internet Outage Raises Question “Could It Happen Here?”
[Commentary] War-torn Syria has disappeared from the Internet. Internet traffic destined for that country is going undelivered, and also that traffic coming from within it cannot get out to the world. The countrywide Internet outage, accompanied by localized outages of mobile and land phone networks, raised fears among some opposition activists that the government is preparing for a major offensive. In addition, the countrywide blackout crystalizes the fears of many about governments taking control of the Internet. The blackout occurs as delegations from around the world gather in Dubai for the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications. Over the past week, we’ve seen a number of articles, op-eds and editorials warning of the possibility that the United Nations will try to take control of the Internet through the ITU gathering.
Syria, WCIT, and the Future of the Internet
The events in Syria highlight the importance of the upcoming WCIT and the implications of the WCIT for free expression online.
Provisions proposed by some member states would explicitly authorize governments such as Syria to disrupt Internet traffic and control Internet architecture, including traffic routing, on the grounds that such censorship is necessary to protect public order or suppress insurrection. Today, nations and organizations that oppose such acts of national censorship are free to help those within Syria circumvent these efforts to suppress speech. For months, global civil society has expressed the concern that ITRs relating to controlling the flow of Internet traffic -- advanced in the name of worthy goals such as cyber security, combating fraud, or ensuring quality of service -- have implications for free expression and the free flow of information online. Hopefully, the events in Syria occurring on the very eve of the WCIT will encourage all member states who value free expression as a fundamental human right to carefully weigh the danger to these values inherent in any ITR expressly recognizing the right of governments to disruptor control Internet traffic routing.
Public Knowledge Weighs The WCIT's Importance To Syria's Blackout Situation
Syria's Internet shutoff is unprecedented in world history. Although Egypt shut off the bulk of their Internet in 2011 in a last-ditch attempt to save the Mubarak regime, essential infrastructure such as the stock exchange and government networks were still connected to the outside world. By contrast, Syria has cut everyone--elite and commoners--off from conventional Internet access within the span of minutes. The only exception are those with expensive satellite modems. Telecomix, an informal collective of Internet freedom activists working worldwide, quickly publicly issued a series of dial-up log-ins for Syrian Internet users, with the caveat that they are likely being monitored by Syrian government authorities.
How Syrian Activists Can Get Around The Internet Blackout Syrians turn to satellites as the country's Internet connection remains down (IDG News Service)
On the eve of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), we believe that it is the right time to reaffirm the U.S. Government’s commitment to the multistakeholder model as the appropriate process for addressing Internet policy and governance issues.
The multistakeholder model has enabled the Internet to flourish. It has promoted freedom of expression, both online and off. It has ensured the Internet is a robust, open platform for innovation, investment, economic growth and the creation of wealth throughout the world, including in developing countries. Our commitment to the multistakeholder model is based on the fact that transparency, inclusion and participation are the 21st century standards governing discussions related to modern communications. This is a view shared by many around the world and was most recently reiterated by a statement of civil society members and groups from around the world who participated in the “Best Bits” pre-Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting held earlier this month in Baku, Azerbaijan. The U.S. Government wishes to lend its support to the spirit of the recommendations contained in the statement. We have and will continue to advocate for an Internet that is not dominated by any one player or group of players, and one that is free from bureaucratic layers that cannot keep up with the pace of change. We will work with everyone to ensure that we have a global Internet that allows all voices to be heard.
The Necessity of an Inclusive, Transparent and Participatory Internet
[Commentary] On December 3, representatives from 193 countries are convening in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, to renegotiate a treaty that could give an arm of the United Nations new powers over the Internet. Despite increased scrutiny of these talks, many countries seem more determined than ever to turn the supremely bad idea of establishing international regulation of the Net into reality.
American diplomats will have to navigate a torrent of formal proposals that would curtail Internet freedom, limit consumers’ choices and increase costs for all Net users. How the negotiations end will shape the future of the Net, as well as the prospects for global freedom and prosperity. The purpose of the Dubai talks, known as the World Conference on International Telecommunications, is to re-examine a 1988 treaty that loosened rules covering telephone and computer communications. The regulatory framework adopted in 1988 took a “hands off” approach to emerging technologies, such as what later became the Internet. As a result, the Internet is now the greatest deregulatory success story of all time. For instance, in 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Net. That number has spiked to more than 2.5 billion today with upward of a half million people becoming first-time Internet users each day. If, however, some key regimes have their way, such soaring positive trend lines will flatten. A successful WCIT would produce a treaty that not only eschews expanded regulation of any aspect of the Internet but also commits to free markets, freedom of speech, competition and deregulation. The people of every nation, but especially tomorrow’s first-time Net users in the developing world, deserve no less. After the December WCIT, new talks commence in May. Defenders of Internet freedom should never let their guard down, for freedom’s foes are patient and persistent incrementalists. To be continued …
Staring down Internet freedom's foes
Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, is urging U.S. negotiators and the United Nations to nix a proposal to allow countries to regulate the Internet. “So many workers are affected by Internet policy, even if we don’t think about it as we go about our day,” he said in a statement supporting a petition against Internet regulation. “The Internet represents one of the few places in our world that is open and accessible by everyone. We need to make sure our voices are heard before US representatives head to the conference.”
AFL-CIO urges UN to drop proposed Internet regulations
You may have heard that at a summit next week, the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency, will attempt to wrest control of the Internet. At a Future Tense event on Internet governance, held at the New America Foundation in Washington, the rumor was soundly spanked by a host of experts.
In reality, they said, the upcoming World Conference on International Communications in Dubai will likely just lead to … more conversation. But maybe there’s a silver lining to all of this bipartisan fear-mongering (or, as Open Technology Institute Director Sascha Meinrath termed it, “the uber-geek [equivalent of] Red Dawn”): “Suddenly everybody’s interested in global governance of the Internet,” said Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller. “If it was necessary to lie to people and tell them the ITU was going to take over the Internet, maybe it’s a good thing.” Indeed, Temple University law professor David Post, author of the amazingly titled book In Search of Jefferson's Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace, observed that right now, it feels a bit like six months before the SOPA protests blew up: We are on the verge of Internet governance issues crossing over into mainstream discussion.
Who Should Govern the Internet? A Future Tense Event Recap.