Benton RSS Feed
[Commentary] Money and politics have always gone hand in hand. But this year, we are witnessing the first presidential election in which big corporations can contribute unlimited funds to media campaigns that directly support or attack candidates. In this brave new world, big money donors are coloring voters’ views of candidates which can make or break political careers at an unprecedented scale. The influence of big money interests continues once candidates are elected, with all of the access money can buy.
We must work to fix the massive structural issues that have allowed big money to distort our political landscape. But in the meantime, we also need to find ways to level the playing field for everyone. And that means protecting today’s greatest equalizer: the Internet. Now more than ever, Internet access is critical to ensure that everyone can participate in our flawed but salvageable democracy. We need fair and equitable policies that extend Internet access so that everyone in the United States can actively engage in the debates that affect their lives.
[Bhargava is executive director of the Center for Community Change and Brunner is director of the Media Democracy Fund.]
A bulwark against the Super PACs: The Internet
For the first week of this election season, Mitt Romney is outspending President Barack Obama on television ads, with the Republican challenger dipping into a war chest amassed from an aggressive fundraising schedule.
Romney will spend about $16.8 million on television ads this week, according to ad-tracking data provided by media buyers, while President Obama will spend about $15.5 million, down 30% from a week earlier, when the campaign spent heavily to air a two-minute, pre-debate spot. When spending by independent super PACs is included, the mismatch is wider. Romney and his allies will combine for $31.4 million this week, compared with $19.7 million for President Obama and his supporters, according to data from one media tracker.
Romney's Ad Buy Tops President's
Sesame Street's objection to the use of Big Bird as a political prop has churned plenty of headlines over the last week, but it's hardly the first time this year a prominent name has protested an unwitting campaign appearance.
From Exxon to AARP to several national journalists, a growing number of well-known groups and individuals have taken exception when either President Obama or GOP nominee Mitt Romney invoked them – without notice or approval – to hammer home a political message. While those organizations have plenty to gain from the national attention a campaign-trail shout-out can generate, they seem more wary that appearances of supporting one side or the other could alienate a huge segment of the country, potentially costing them customers, members or even influence on Capitol Hill.
Big Bird joins list of unwitting – and unwilling – campaign props
Amazon received approval from the Federal Communications Commission to sell its high-end Kindle Fire 4G tablets. Amazon unveiled the new tablets last month, but the devices had not secured FCC clearance. The company had to put disclaimers on Web pages and emails promoting the products. FCC approval is required for wireless communications devices to assure that they operate safely and do not improperly interfere with other signals.
Amazon gets FCC's OK to sell Kindle Fire 4G tablets
In an agreement that the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) calls "a model for the streaming video industry," Netflix has agreed to caption all of its shows by the year 2014. The online-streaming giant is already captioning 82 percent of its videos, according to the consent decree. Now, it's bound to finish its entire library, reaching the 90 percent mark in 2013 and 100 percent by 2014. The company has also agreed to speedily caption new content. The agreement says that Netflix will put captions on new content within 30 days by 2014; within 14 days by 2015; and within 7 days by 2016, "and shall strive to reach a point at which Conforming Captions are provided simultaneously with launch at all times."
Netflix settles with deaf-rights group, agrees to caption all videos by 2014
Now Mitt Romney knows how Rick Santorum feels. A Google images search for the phrase “completely wrong,” which Romney used in a recent interview with Sean Hannity, now leads to page after page of pictures of the GOP presidential nominee. A Google spokesman told CNN the photos are the unintentional result of normal Google search rules. After video leaked of Romney disparaging “47 percent” of Americans as dependent on government and destined to vote for Barack Obama, he first said his comments were “not elegantly stated.” A week later, after a strong debate performance, he told Hannity his comments were “completely wrong.”
Mitt Romney has a Google problem
A coalition of groups has warned the Federal Communications Commission to be careful how it collects and/or shares consumer online information as part of its broadband speed tests.
In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Communications Liberty and Innovation Project, TechFreedom, Center for Media and Democracy and a half-dozen others said they were concerned consumers were turning over information to the government that could be used to "review" their Internet activity "without due process or judicial scrutiny." The FCC is using the information to "help determine the access of U.S. residents to broadband (such as cable, DSL, fiber, and other broadband services, including mobile services." The info may be shared with NTIA and the Agriculture Department, both of which oversee broadband deployment and adoption grants and loans. But the groups are worried that the test gives the FCC too much access to personal info without enough checks and balances.
Groups Concerned About FCC Collection/Sharing of Online Consumer Data
Appearing on C-SPAN’s “The Communicators,” former Bush administration National Telecommunications and Information Administration head John Kneuer said that while there is broad support for government research funding, the Obama Administration's willingness to step in as a commercial partner with certain businesses has caused "real harm" to emerging technology programs. "The problem is when government views itself as a partner and is driving economic decisions for favored political entities," he said. He said much-needed federal funding is often little more than "development in drag." That, he said, is a role the government should not be playing.
Former NTIA Chief Criticizes Government Investment
After a rebuff of China's biggest telecommunications-equipment makers by U.S. lawmakers, industry players are watching the fast-growing Chinese technology market for what they see as Beijing's possible response: retaliation against U.S. companies.
China's government could respond with a number of unannounced measures to bolster its embattled telecom champions, which have rejected the congressional allegations that their equipment could be used for spying in the U.S. At stake is China's fast-growing market for technology gear underpinning computer networks and cellular communications. Sales of network equipment for government and business use alone—a segment known as the enterprise market—could total about $105 billion this year and grow 11% in 2013.
Telecom Industry Keeps Eye on China
[Commentary] To read the scathing condemnation of Chinese telecoms equipment suppliers fired from Washington this week, you would think we still lived in another world. In that world, telecoms networks were built by national monopolies such as AT&T, France Telecom and British Telecom, and outsiders stayed away. But we don’t.
The chief accusation is that, if permitted to build networks for operators such as AT&T and Verizon, Huawei would build traps into the software and hardware. Its friends in the Communist party could then use them to hack databases or to bring the networks down in a war. It is foolish to ignore the potential security holes in telecoms networks. But barring Chinese companies does not solve it. Alcatel-Lucent has a venture in China with Shanghai Bell and much of the equipment used by Ericsson and others is made in China. If the party and the PLA wanted to be sneaky they would tamper with these components. The best thing for US consumers would be to admit Huawei and ZTE with safeguards. The US might require Huawei to list in London or New York to illuminate who owns the company; submit technology to the NSA; and separate its US division like a defense group. It could even demand the dissolution of its Communist party committee. What it cannot do is recreate the past.
Too late for America to eliminate Huawei