Benton RSS Feed
Set in the dry hills and irrigated farmland of Central Washington, Grant County is known for its robust harvest of apples, potatoes, cherries and beans. But for Microsoft, a prime lure was the region’s other valuable resource: cheap electrical power.
The technology giant created a stir here in 2006 when it bought about 75 acres of bean fields to build a giant data center, a digital warehouse to support various Internet services. Its voracious appetite for electricity would be fed by hydroelectric generators that work off the flow of the nearby Columbia River, and Microsoft officials pledged to operate their new enterprise with a focus on energy efficiency and environmental sensitivity. But for some in Quincy, the gee-whiz factor of such a prominent high-tech neighbor wore off quickly. First, a citizens group initiated a legal challenge over pollution from some of nearly 40 giant diesel generators that Microsoft’s facility — near an elementary school — is allowed to use for backup power. Then came a showdown late last year between the utility and Microsoft, whose hardball tactics shocked some local officials.
Data Barns in a Farm Town, Gobbling Power and Flexing Muscle
[Commentary] So was the Internet created by Big Government or Big Capital? The answer is: Neither.
This is what’s most notable about the debate over the Net’s origins: it misses the most interesting part of the story. We live in a world that assumes that the most important and original products in society — bridges, cars, iPads, hospitals, 787s, houses — are created either by states or by corporations. And yet, against all odds, the Internet came from somewhere else entirely. Like many of the bedrock technologies that have come to define the digital age, the Internet was created by — and continues to be shaped by — decentralized groups of scientists and programmers and hobbyists (and more than a few entrepreneurs) freely sharing the fruits of their intellectual labor with the entire world. Yes, government financing supported much of the early research, and private corporations enhanced and commercialized the platforms. But the institutions responsible for the technology itself were neither governments nor private start-ups. They were much closer to the loose, collaborative organizations of academic research. They were networks of peers.
The Internet? We Built That
[Commentary] Google pointed to its internal edicts to explain why it rebuffed calls to take down an incendiary anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube altogether. It did not meet its definition of hate speech, YouTube said, and so it allowed the video to stay up on the Web. It didn’t say very much more. That explanation revealed not only the challenges that confront companies like Google but also how opaque they can be in explaining their verdicts on what can be said on their platforms. Google, Facebook and Twitter receive hundreds of thousands of complaints about content every week. Certainly, the scale and nature of YouTube makes this a daunting task. Any analysis requires combing through over a billion videos and overlaying that against the laws and mores of different countries. It’s unclear whether expert panels would allow for unpopular minority opinion anyway. The company said in a statement that, like newspapers, it, too, made “nuanced” judgments about content: “It’s why user-generated content sites typically have clear community guidelines and remove videos or posts that break them.”
Free Speech in the Age of YouTube
[Commentary] Members of Congress and civil rights groups are pushing the Federal Communications Commission to rein in telephone companies that, in many states, charge inmates spectacularly high rates that can force their families to choose between keeping in touch with a relative behind bars and, in some cases, putting food on the table.
The time is long past for the FCC — which has been weighing this issue for nearly a decade — to break up what amount to monopolies and ensure that prisoners across the country have access to reasonably priced interstate telephone service. The calls are expensive because they are placed through independent telephone companies that pay the state a “commission” — essentially a legalized kickback — that ranges from 15 percent to 60 percent either as a portion of revenue, a fixed upfront fee or a combination of both. According to a new report by the Prison Policy Initiative, a research group based in Massachusetts, depending on the size of the kickback, a 15-minute call can cost the family as little as $2.36 or as much as $17.
Costly Phone Calls for Inmates
Tucked amid rows of office cubicles at the sprawling Verizon Wireless headquarters and hidden behind a locked door sit the company’s best kept retail secrets. The mock store looks like a Verizon Wireless retail outlet right down to the signs for the iPhone 5 and racks of mobile accessories. But on one wall, an experimental display of tablets and smartphones labeled “Home Services” offers Verizon customers a new service: cable TV. The display is a little-known result of Verizon’s $3.9 billion purchase of spectrum from Bright House Networks, Comcast, Cox Communications and Time Warner Cable that the Federal Communications Commission approved last month. While most attention has focused on how the purchase of unused airwaves will help Verizon expand its new fourth-generation wireless network, a less publicized result is that cable companies can now use Verizon’s retail presence to sell cable packaged with phone and wireless service. The partnership signals a major shift for both industries. Until recently, wireless and cable companies were archrivals. Major cable providers owned spectrum and hoped to start their own wireless businesses, while wireless companies wanted to compete in cable. The new spirit of cooperation is jolting analysts.
Mobile Services and Cable TV Are Unexpected Allie
Once the best of friends, Google and Apple have become foes, battling in courtrooms and in the consumer marketplace. Last week, the hostilities took a new turn when they spilled right onto smartphone screens. In the latest version of Apple’s iPhone software, which became available Wednesday, Apple removed two mainstay apps, both Google products — Maps and YouTube. The disappearing apps show just how far-reaching the companies’ rivalry has become, as well as the importance of mobile users to their businesses. Maps are particularly crucial on mobile devices, where location-based services and ads have emerged as the pathway to making money. Google and Apple are not the only warriors in the fight. Amazon, Nokia, Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo are competing, too.
Apple’s Feud With Google Is Now Felt on iPhone
Big outside political groups armed with an unprecedented river of money had appeared poised to be pivotal players in the 2012 elections. So far, these super PACs are looking less than super.
Freed of any constraints on the size of donations, political action committees have since April poured more than $250 million into the presidential and select congressional races—more than what the two 1996 presidential candidates spent in total on their campaigns, records show. But signs are few that super PACs have had the major impact that both supporters and critics predicted. The flood of spending doesn't appear to have significantly influenced voter opinion in key states in the presidential contest or in top congressional races. On the presidential front, conservative outside groups backing Republican candidates say they already have played their most significant role, and that their influence will fade as the candidates themselves present their closing arguments to voters.
Super PAC Influence Falls Short Of Aims
[Commentary] Any day now, the White House will issue an executive order on cybersecurity.
The executive moved on its own after Congressional efforts stalled this summer. The Senate split over mandating IT security standards for private companies, and the Administration's order resuscitates this contentious idea. It will also undercut efforts to fashion a bipartisan bill in a lame duck Congress. The Administration's evident motive is to impose government oversight of cyberspace. As it worked to undercut information sharing, the White House pushed the Senate to adopt mandatory IT standards for companies in "critical sectors." Those provisions were weakened in later drafts of the measure, but Senate Republicans still sensibly balked at the attempt to give the Department of Homeland Security oversight over the virtual world, and any bill with such mandates could never pass the House. According to leaked versions of the draft, the executive order would impose security standards for 16 critical industries. The adoption of these "voluntary" (ironic quotes intended) and probably costly measures could be a condition for private companies to win federal contracts. A DHS-led cybersecurity council will decide who's "critical." Twitter and Facebook could easily end up on the list along with electricity providers or financial services firms.
Obama's Cyber Attack
Facebook is working with a controversial data company called Datalogix that can track whether people who see ads on the social networking site end up buying those products in stores.
Amid growing pressure for the social networking site to prove the value of its advertising, Facebook is gradually wading into new techniques for tracking and using data about users that raise concerns among privacy advocates. Datalogix has purchasing data from about 70 million American households largely drawn from loyalty cards and programs at more than 1,000 retailers, including grocers and drug stores. By matching email addresses or other identifying information associated with those cards against emails or information used to establish Facebook accounts, Datalogix can track whether people bought a product in a store after seeing an ad on Facebook.
Facebook raises fears with ad tracking
The Verizon version of the iPhone 5, which went on sale Friday, comes with a secret and unexpected feature: it works on AT&T's network as well.
The Verizon iPhone 5 accepts an AT&T "SIM card" — a little chip that identifies a phone to a wireless network. The phone can then be active on AT&T's network. It's the first time Verizon iPhones have been able to access AT&T's network without complicated hacking procedures. The feature may mean little to most buyers, since they're signing up for two years of Verizon service. But it does give them the option of switching carriers. It's unclear whether the feature is intended and whether the phones will work with other carriers, such as T-Mobile USA. But Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Brenda Raney confirmed Saturday that the iPhone 5 models it's selling are "unlocked."
Verizon iPhone 5 secret? It works on AT&T, too.