Benton RSS Feed
[Commentary] Do you watch college football? Listen to smooth jazz? Search the Internet for guidance on parenting, spirituality or a health concern? Look at pornography sites online? Do you like the fact that political strategists with the presidential campaigns know the answers to each of those questions? It's disturbing, but they do.
The architects behind this year's presidential campaigns know far more about voters than ever before, thanks to the increasingly precise science of data mining. There are companies that compile and study a wealth of details about your personal life, from the type of beer you like to drink to whether you paid your bills on time last month. Some of those companies, like Rapleaf or Intelius, have been sued for alleged privacy violations. That hasn't stopped political strategists from buying their data. Data mining at this level carries terrible privacy concerns, and the campaigns need to be cautious. If they can't resist for ethical reasons, they need to think of the legal ones; the courts have yet to specify the legal limits of data mining, but there's no doubt that they will.
The dangers of data mining for votes
Former Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps has called on broadcasters to launch a primetime voting rights public service announcement campaign to counter what he says have been efforts to intimidate and suppress voter turnout.
In a letter to National Association of Broadcasters President Gordon Smith, Copps, now head of Common Cause's Media and Democracy Initiative, also asked the NAB to encourage stations to focus additional news coverage on state, county and municipal races. "I know you and I agree on the importance of doing everything possible to maximize voter turnout and minimize voter intimidation, voter suppression, and any other activity that might short-circuit America's democratic process," he told Smith. "I know that many broadcasters are working hard to inform their communities and to discharge their public interest responsibilities, and I continue to salute those that are doing so," he said. "But not all stations perform at such levels of excellence. Now is the time to remind those who are granted stewardship of the public's airwaves that their highest duty, especially in the days and weeks just ahead, is to inform and nourish the civic dialogue upon which the vitality of the United States always depends."
Copps: Broadcasters Should Educate Public About Voting Rights
What's a Sprint Nextel shareholder to do?
Shares of the No. 3 U.S. wireless carrier have risen 104% over the past 12 months as the company has started selling the iPhone, refinanced its debt and made progress shutting down the Nextel network. Now Softbank has agreed to buy a 70% stake. Sprint shareholders will get $7.30 a share in cash for 55% of the company's shares and a share in new Sprint for the remaining 45%. Softbank will also inject $8 billion of new capital. It isn't a bad outcome, considering some analysts considered Sprint at risk of bankruptcy as recently as a few months ago. But the complicated deal and the diminished voting power that comes with it may leave investors wondering whether to bail once the deal closes or stick it out to see how a better capitalized Sprint will fare. There remains an outside chance that a powerful buyer, such as Mexico's Carlos Slim, makes a late counter bid. But if not, investors should expect to hang up on Sprint's stock when Softbank completes the deal.
No Need to Run, but Sprint Investors Should Prepare for Exit
Supporters of cybersecurity reform are playing offense throughout the region this week, emphasizing dire digital threats to the nation’s critical infrastructure in a bid to break a long-running political stalemate. At conferences, panels, speeches and other events in Washington and elsewhere, lawmakers and top White House officials have hyped the risks to state secrets, corporate property and the public’s well-being posed by hackers and spies while reaffirming the need to patch cybersecurity vulnerabilities before the year’s end. The roadshow stopped in Baltimore on Oct 16. At an industry conference, the White House’s top cybersecurity adviser, Michael Daniel, said the latest spate of cyberattacks around the world marks a “significant escalation in the cyber threat.”
Reformers stress cybersecurity risks
Google Chief Executive Larry Page is talking publicly again. The 39-year-old Page made his first public comments in several months when he appeared at Google's annual Zeitgeist conference in Paradise Valley (AZ), where the Internet company hosts its business partners.
Speaking with a raspy voice in front of an audience of several hundred people, Page spent more than half an hour addressing topics including Google's dealings with antitrust regulators and the recent flap with Apple over maps software. Page said he is "hopeful" the company will be able to "work well" with antitrust regulators and resolve probes of its business in the European Union and the U.S. He added that "I do think over-regulation of the Internet and restriction of what people can do is a big risk for us." Page made several comments that reflected the arguments Google has used to counter claims by competitors that it has increasingly pointed Web-search engine users to Google's specialized services, such as Google Places or the Google+ social networking service, rather than pointing people to sites run by its competitors.
Google CEO Speaks Publicly Again, Says He's 'Hopeful' About Outcome of Antitrust Probes
[Commentary] We have entered a new era in TV. My parents grew up in the 1950s and 1960s watching broadcast/network TV. I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s watching cable (and satellite) TV. My children and are growing up watching TV delivered “Over The Top” (OTT), or over IP-based networks, and they are doing so on a multitude of devices (TVs, tablets, smartphones, etc.).
We are in the early stages of a video creation, distribution, consumption, content bundling and pricing paradigm shift that will lead to fundamental and transformational shifts in the $150 billion U.S. pay-TV ecosystem.
Who will be the winners when all is said and done? Although the incumbents will be challenged in a number of ways, you should not expect them to disappear anytime soon. They have tremendous resources, a history of competing vigorously in the marketplace and have shown the ability to evolve their existing businesses just enough to remain dominant. However, I do expect that there will be some new and innovative companies that will emerge as next-generation leaders in practically every part of the pay-TV ecosystem. I have my own ideas of which companies may be included in this group, but it will be the consumers who will really win — with increased content choices, more advantageous pricing schemes and the true capacity to watch whatever, wherever and whenever they want.
[Daniel Leff is a Venture Partner at Globespan Capital Partners, a technology-focused venture capital firm]
A New Era in TV
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) looks like a sure bet to head the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) next year.
The seven-term Oregon Republican has the full backing of his good friend, current NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX). Rep Walden is also a trusted member of Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) inner circle, serving as chairman of the House Republican leadership since 2010. The NRCC chairman is elected by House Republicans, so Rep Walden will have to make the case to his colleagues. But there are few other names being floated. Two members who have been mentioned are Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) and former NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK). But Rep Walden, 55, is the clear favorite. He is currently chairman of the House Communications and Technology subcommittee.
Rep. Walden is sure bet to head NRCC
Thailand’s main telecoms regulator defended the results of a long-delayed auction of third-generation mobile spectrum bandwidth after criticism that it was underpriced.
The auction netted the government Bt41.7 billion ($1.36 billion) – just 2.8 percent above the government’s reserve price and 30 percent below the value calculated by a National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) advisory panel. Thailand’s top three mobile operators paid an average of Bt4.63 billion for nine 3G licenses, landing three 15-year licenses each. Six of the licenses sold for the minimum price of Bt4.5 billion. Critics including consumer groups and a leading private think-tank criticized the auction as uncompetitive and underpriced. Some threatened to take legal action to overturn the auction results once they are certified in January. Opponents of the 3G auction derailed the originally planned sale in 2010.
Thai regulator defends 3G license auction
[Commentary] The Wall Street Journal endured a double embarrassment October 15. First, a Wall Street Journal editorial bemoaned that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had stayed “mute” on the Libya scandal — at the very moment that Clinton was conducting a monster round of interviews with television networks. And to top it off, the Wall Street Journal’s editorializers were criticizing Clinton’s alleged accountabliphobia even though the news side of the Wall Street Journal had been sitting on a big Clinton interview that had gone down five days earlier.
On Oct 10, Sec Clinton sat down with the Journal and told the paper that she took “responsibility” for the Libya affair — a story line that didn’t come out till Oct 15 via CNN. Why did the news side of the Journal have such a fine story and wait five days to push it out the door? Says a State Department official: “They cannot attack us for . . . not doing interviews. They can’t attack us for not taking responsibility and then realize they were wrong” and fail to address the contradictions. “It was just the right hand not talking to the far right hand,” says the official of the intra-Journal mix-up.
State Dept. on WSJ: ‘Right hand wasn’t talking to the far right hand’
Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK) released the 2012 edition of his "Wastebook" report on the worst examples of government waste. In it he highlights the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program as "ballooning out of control" and has "morphed into a massive entitlement."
"The government safety net exists to ensure all Americans have the essentials for living — food, shelter, and safety. Now that list apparently includes cell phones," he said. "To take advantage of the federal handout, prepaid wireless companies — who collect most of the subsidy — often camp out in low-income areas to get better access to those who qualify for the program," Sen Coburn wrote. He described reports that one company gave discounts to customers who referred friends and family to the program and other companies enrolled the same people multiple times.
Congress first enacted the Lifeline program in 1985, during the Reagan administration. In 2005, the FCC expanded the program to cover low-cost cellphone service. The program pays for phone service, not the phones themselves. But many companies that receive funding through the program offer free and low-cost phones to their subscribers. The discounts average $9.25 per month for qualifying households, and the program is funded through fees that the telephone companies pass on to consumers on their monthly bills. The point of the program is to ensure that everyone has access to basic communications services, especially during emergencies.
Sen Coburn blasts FCC's phone subsidy as 'massive entitlement'