Monday, September 10, 2018
Headlines Daily Digest
Universal Broadband Won’t Save Us
Don't Miss:
GAO finds FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands
Senators Call on Telecoms to Guarantee Service to First Responders During Emergencies
Is Google Fiber High-Speed Internet’s Most Successful Failure?
Broadband/Internet
Wireless
Accessibility
Platforms
Ownership
Privacy
Elections
Government & Communications
Education
Company News
Stories From Abroad
Internet/Broadband
It is frequently asserted that universal broadband access is an efficient means for people to secure not just access to the web but also education, jobs, and health care. But beneath this narrative’s egalitarian veneer, and politicians’ bromides about the virtue of participating in the “digital economy,” rest many of the canards about bootstrapping that helped cause these inequities in the first place. Universal broadband is a necessary policy—but we shouldn’t let it distract from broader and more urgent deficiencies. The problem isn’t that centrist technocrats seek to broaden Internet access; it’s how they seek to broaden it. As others have argued, leaders should embrace the conceit of Internet access for all, but instead of funneling millions of additional dollars to telecom giants, dedicate broadband policy to serving the public, like any other public utility.
Contrary to the assumptions written into “bipartisan” broadband doctrine, no form of technology, no matter how vast (or fast), will reverse cuts to welfare imposed by both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past three decades. Broadband must be provided not only universally but also equitably, and as part of a far more comprehensive social program—otherwise, the “opportunity” will only arise for those who’ve had it all along.
[Julianne Tveten writes about the intersection of the technology industry and socioeconomic issues.]
The Government Accountability Office was asked to review the Federal Communications Commission's efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands. This report examines the extent to which: (1) FCC's approach to collecting broadband data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the data.
The FCC collects data on broadband availability; these data capture where providers may have broadband infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. This leads to overstatements of service for specific locations like tribal lands. FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands. Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors—such as affordability, quality, and denials of service—that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband services. FCC provides broadband funding for unserved areas based on its broadband data. Overstatements of access limit FCC’s and tribal stakeholders’ abilities to target broadband funding to such areas.
GAO is making three recommendations to FCC, to which the agency agreed:
- The Chairman of the FCC should develop and implement methods--such as a targeted data collection--for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands.
- The Chairman of the FCC should develop a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process.
- The Chairman of the FCC should obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of FCC's 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether FCC needs to clarify the agency's tribal engagement statement.
In a paper commissioned by NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association and USTelecom, the authors examine communications networks, road networks, and electric power networks as three key network infrastructure industries; and the resulting vulnerability in low-density rural areas with the highest need for targeted subsidies. By the very nature of network economics, each industry exhibits economies of density and each reaches a point at which un-subsidized provision of service in low-density areas is not viable. The causes of higher costs in low-density areas are discussed in this paper using communications examples. In addition, the scope of low-density areas in the United States is considered. The importance of subsidies to networks in low-density areas is described for each of the major US network industries. The importance of subsidies depends in large part on whether there are substitute methods of providing similar services (e.g., wells for water, propane tanks instead of natural gas networks, septic systems instead of sewer networks).
[The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed in Charter Advanced Services (MN), LLC v. Lange (in the context of Minnesota’s attempt to regulate interconnected VoIP service) that state efforts to regulate information services are preempted by federal law.]
A patchwork quilt of 50 state laws harms investment and innovation in advanced communications services. That’s why federal law for decades has recognized that states may not regulate information services. The Eighth Circuit’s decision is important for reaffirming that well-established principle: ‘[A]ny state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal policy of nonregulation’ and is therefore preempted. That is wholly consistent with the approach the FCC has taken under Democratic and Republican Administrations over the last two decades, including in last year’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order.
Sens Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) called on the Federal Communications Commission, Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile to guarantee service to first responders during emergencies and clarify policies regarding unlimited data plans. During the Mendocino Complex Fire, Verizon restricted data speeds for the Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD), despite the fact the department had purchased an unlimited data plan. “We remain concerned that SCFD may have been told that their plan was ‘unlimited,’ only because they could continue to purchase more data once they hit their data caps,” the senators wrote in the letter to Verizon. “If this was the case, then this strikes us as disingenuous marketing. By this logic, any restaurant with a menu is a ‘buffet.’ While we appreciate that Verizon has made a promise to lift data caps on its public safety customers in the event of a future disaster, we would like to know more about how this came about in the first place, and Verizon’s specific plans to ensure that it won’t happen again.”
"We saw the true danger of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality repeal when Verizon was caught throttling California firefighters," said digital rights group Fight for the Future. Let’s unpack that statement.
What’s clear is that because the firefighters’ service plan permitted the kind of speed restrictions that were allowed under the old rules, Verizon did not directly violate net neutrality’s no-throttling rule. But there’s another rule that could have ensnared Verizon: The "general conduct" rule. This prohibited companies like Verizon and Comcast from "unreasonably interfering" with customers’ Internet access. It also created an avenue for customers to file complaints to the FCC. But the repeal of net neutrality choked off this avenue. Harold Feld, the senior vice president at Public Knowledge, said the key point comes down to whether or not there’s a process for aggrieved consumers to get a fair hearing. "It’s not just about whether Verizon behaved appropriately or not," he said. "It’s about having clear rules and procedures in place so that when an emergency like this happens, people know what to do and can resolve the problem quickly." "The removal of the 'cop on the beat' may have contributed to Verizon acting in ways that even it now admits was dumb," said former FCC staffer Blair Levin. "If there is no one watching, people act differently than if they think someone is watching."
Our ruling: Under net neutrality, the firefighters could have filed a complaint against Verizon to the FCC, which at the very least would have launched an investigation, experts said. Repeal of the rules removed that avenue, thereby sidelining the FCC from serving as a "cop on the beat." However, the firefighters’ service plan permitted the kind of speed restrictions that were allowed under the old rules. So the company did not violate net neutrality’s no-throttling rule. The claim is partially accurate but leaves out important context. We rate this Half True.
In 2010, Google rocked the $60 billion broadband industry by announcing plans to deploy fiber-based home internet service, offering connections up to a gigabit per second — 100 times faster than average speeds at the time. Google Fiber, as the effort was named, entered the access market intending to prove the business case for ultra-high-speed internet. After deploying to six metro areas in six years, however, company management announced in late 2016 that it was “pausing” future deployments. But what if the company’s goal was never to unleash the disrupter itself so much as to encourage incumbent broadband providers to do so, helping Google’s expansion in adjacent markets such as video and emerging markets including smart homes? Seen through that lens, Google Fiber succeeded wildly.
[Blair Levin led the team that produced the FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan. He later founded Gig.U, which encouraged gigabit internet deployments in cities with major research universities. He is currently a Nonresident Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institution and Policy Advisor with New Street Research.]
[Larry Downes is Project Director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy ]
The early waves of mobile communications were largely driven by American and European companies. As the next era of 5G approaches, promising to again transform the way people use the internet, a battle is on to determine whether the US or China will dominate.
Equipment makers and telecom operators in both countries are rushing to test and roll out the next generation of wireless networks, which will be as much as 100 times faster than the current 4G standard. Governments are involved as well—with China making the bigger push. The new networks are expected to enable the steering of driverless cars and doctors to perform complex surgeries remotely. They could power connected appliances in the so-called Internet of Things, and virtual and augmented reality. Towers would beam high-speed internet to devices, reducing reliance on cables and Wi-Fi.
Accessibility
Technology improves for people with disabilities as firms respond to moral, legal demands
Over the last few years, Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft have leveraged artificial intelligence, computer vision and advances in voice recognition to deliver tools to assist blind individuals and people who are deaf, have motor impairments or other disabilities. At the same time, new technologies such as voice-activated speakers and more captioning on websites and in social media have widened access to some internet services. Development of these specialized features are driven by a confluence of factors – a desire by tech leaders to be more inclusive, but also the need to satisfy legal and market imperatives. Companies must adhere to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires the federal government to make electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. And many states have their own Section-508-type requirements or consumer-protection statutes.
Laws have provided the biggest benefit to blind people, because “you can’t count on people’s compassion to drive industry,” says Anil Lewis, executive director for the Jernigan Institute at National Federation of the Blind.
On September 5, 2018, lawmakers on Capitol Hill hosted two hearings with the heads of Facebook and Twitter. In the morning, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the hearing on Foreign Influence Operations’ Use of Social Media Platforms. Later that day, just Dorsey appeared before the House Commerce Committee at the hearing, Twitter: Transparency and Accountability. The hearings provided the opportunity for lawmakers to air their grievances about online platforms, and to get some answers as to whether Facebook and Twitter are doing enough to ensure the platforms provide a safe and trusted information environment ahead of the 2018 elections. But behind it all lurked the threat of regulation.
Democratic attorneys general from key states said they have not yet been invited by the Justice Department to its upcoming review of tech companies, prompting criticism that the Trump administration's inquiry is a politically-charged attack on the tech industry.
Democratic attorneys general from California and New York — two tech hubs — as well as officials from Connecticut and Washington, which are active on issues related to technology, consumer protection and antitrust, so far have not been invited. The Democratic Attorneys General Association said it "had not heard any Democratic attorneys general [are] invited." Only Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas, has said he will participate at the event. The Justice Department has received inquiries from a number of Republican and Democratic attorneys general. The potentially partisan nature of DOJ's meeting raised deep suspicions among some tech experts, particularly against the backdrop of President Trump's recent comments attacking social media sites as biased against conservatives — and threatening regulations and investigations in response.
"This type of meeting, in a highly politically charged environment, will have no credibility if all the participants come from the same political party," said Gene Kimmelman, a former top official at the Justice Department who is now the president of Public Knowledge.
Washington officials once dazzled by the swashbuckling entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley are now openly questioning the freedom they’ve bestowed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Emboldened by a president who’s openly contemptuous of the companies -- despite his own reliance on Twitter -- and intelligence reports linking popular online sites to election interference, lawmakers from both parties grilled top tech executives this week about whether, and how, Washington should rein them in.
Gigi Sohn, a Benton Foundation senior fellow and distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy in Washington, said there’s a partisan divide on what changes are needed. Democrats want protection from foreign actors, privacy protections and increased competition, while Republicans are focused on “so-called bias against conservative voices,” she said. “The mood has definitely shifted -- both parties have made it clear that they are going to be watching tech closely on a variety of issues, and the threat of regulation is more real than ever,” Sohn said.
A Department of Justice spokesman said in a statement on Sept 5 that Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to convene a meeting with state attorneys over concerns tech companies like Facebook and Twitter are “hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms.” The Trump Administration is unlikely to prove specific charges, but that’s not the point, said Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. It’s to mute and discredit outside authorities or channels that may pose political challenges for President Trump. “There has been no allegation that the social media companies have violated the law in handling the speech on their platforms, and thus no apparent reason for the DOJ to become involved,” he said. “The DOJ’s intervention here appears to be an attack on free speech, not a defense of it.” Ironically, the Federal Communications Commission’s “total repeal” of Obama-era net neutrality rules ended strong protections against any online provider selectively discriminating against content. Net neutrality rules don’t directly apply to Twitter and Facebook, since they aren’t common carriers like internet service providers, which must carry web traffic to end users. But conservatives are claiming that these forums are silencing conservative voices and violating their First Amendment rights.
In one particularly revealing line of questioning during the Sept 5 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen Kamala Harris (D-CA) asked Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg how Facebook makes money and whether the company’s hate-speech policies are truly aimed to protect vulnerable communities that are often the subject of prejudice and animus. Her point was that there’s a real question as to whether Facebook, a company whose first responsibility is to its shareholders, is adequately poised to address false news, hate speech, or any other harmful—and highly engaging—content that users generate. Through her questioning, Sen Harris was suggesting that if Facebook was indeed dedicated to making its community safer for all users and weeding out hate speech, it probably would’ve examined its definition of hate speech before it was called out by journalists. And Sandberg didn’t offer much of an explanation for the oversight. Sandberg admitted Facebook was wrong in the past, admitted Facebook makes money from increased engagement, and said Facebook has changed its policies—but she couldn’t address the real problem Sen Harris was scratching at. That problem is that Facebook has every incentive to allow hate speech against historically targeted groups if it means more engagement and little incentive to remove it without outside pressure or regulation. Which might lead critics to a question Sen Harris didn’t ask but was probably thinking: Would the company do better if failing to protect its users’ civil rights was against the law?
Rebuilding Facebook’s content enforcement mechanisms to weed out harmful content could take 3 years or longer, said the company’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “The good news is we started this in 2017, so even though this work will extend through 2019, I do expect us to end this year on a significantly better trajectory than when we entered it,” he added. Zuckerberg said that he would reveal more about the company’s plans to fight abuse in the near future in a series of posts. “The first note will be about the steps we’re taking to prevent election interference on Facebook, which is timely with the US midterms and Brazilian Presidential elections approaching,” Zuckerberg wrote. “I’ll write about privacy, encryption and business models, and then about content governance and enforcement as well in the coming months.” Zuckerberg acknowledged that the company inevitably had to deal with all kinds of abuse. “When you build services that are used by billions of people across countries and cultures, you will see all of the good humanity is capable of, and people will try to abuse those services in every way possible,” he wrote. “It is our responsibility to amplify the good and mitigate the bad.”
The week of Sept 10, the Federal Trade Commission launches a months-long series of hearings on antitrust and competition policy that could change how the government treats some tech companies in the digital age. It will be the latest spotlight on the hot-button issue of the disparate regulatory treatment of social media sites and Internet service providers. Edge providers argue they don't need new innovation-suppressing regulations, but that ISPs, who they argue lack effective competition, need more oversight now that the Federal Communications Commission has deeded authority over ISP net neutrality to the FTC. ISPs say that if they are to continue to be subject to a broadband regulatory regime, the FTC should "harmonize" its enforcement by applying regs to the edge providers who they say are large, dominant players (Google, Facebook) currently excluded from the regulatory picture. The first hearing will be Sept. 13-14 at The Georgetown University Law Center and is scheduled to deal with 1) "the current landscape of competition and consumer protection law and policy; 2) whether the U.S. economy has become more concentrated and less competitive; 3) the regulation of consumer data; 4) antitrust law and the consumer welfare standard; and 5) the analysis of vertical mergers."
Our upcoming hearings provide an important opportunity for the Federal Trade Commission to reflect on ways to increase the effectiveness of our enforcement of the antitrust laws. This is especially important as these hearings come against the backdrop of concerns about increasing concentration and declining competition across sectors of the US economy. As the FTC engages in this period of introspection into how the agency advances its competition policy and enforcement goals, a key aim of this exercise should be to examine our full set of tools and authorities – not only those that we have traditionally relied upon. We should approach this inquiry with three goals in mind:
- Reduce ambiguity around what the law is, enhancing predictability;
- Reduce the burdens of litigation and enforcement, enhancing efficiency; and
- Reduce opacity and certain undemocratic features of the current approach, enhancing transparency and participation.
I urge interested parties to explore whether and how rulemaking might lead to antitrust policy that is more predictable, efficient, and participatory. There are several areas where further commentary would be particularly useful:
- The FTC Act specifically exempts certain entities from Section 5, and Congress has delegated the authority to prohibit unfair practices to other agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transportation. These authorities were modeled after the FTC Act. Are there examples of competition rules promulgated by other agencies that have led to noteworthy results?
- Are there other examples at the federal or state level where agencies have sought to develop competition laws or standards through rulemaking? What factors have defined whether these rules were successful at promoting competition?
- What data exist to capture the amount of time that the antitrust law governing particular conduct has been unclear due to diverging views among courts?
- How might FTC studies and rulemaking reduce the reliance on high-cost paid experts required for litigation?
- What are potential topics for rulemaking that might specifically help to reduce the length and burden of antitrust litigation?
- How would FTC rulemaking impact enforcement actions brought under state “little FTC Acts”?
Amazon has more revenue than Facebook, Google and Twitter put together, but it has largely escaped sustained examination. That is beginning to change, and one significant reason is Lina Khan. In early 2017, when she was an unknown law student, Khan published “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” in the Yale Law Journal. Her argument went against a consensus in antitrust circles that dates back to the 1970s — the moment when regulation was redefined to focus on consumer welfare, which is to say price. Since Amazon is renowned for its cut-rate deals, it would seem safe from federal intervention. Khan disagreed. Over 93 heavily footnoted pages, she presented the case that the company should not get a pass on anticompetitive behavior just because it makes customers happy. Once-robust monopoly laws have been marginalized, Khan wrote, and consequently Amazon is amassing structural power that lets it exert increasing control over many parts of the economy. Amazon has so much data on so many customers, it is so willing to forgo profits, it is so aggressive and has so many advantages from its shipping and warehouse infrastructure that it exerts an influence much broader than its market share. It resembles the all-powerful railroads of the Progressive Era, Khan wrote: “The thousands of retailers and independent businesses that must ride Amazon’s rails to reach market are increasingly dependent on their biggest competitor.”
When Amazon invited cities to compete for its second global headquarters a year ago today, it got reams of data from the 238 entrants — enough to learn details of the cities' future plans that a lot of their residents don't even know about. The information effectively provided Amazon with a database chock full of granular details about the economic development prospects of every major metropolitan area in the United States (and some in Canada). For a rapidly-expanding tech behemoth like Amazon, that database could help it make expansion decisions that go way beyond the new headquarters. Much of the quantitative data that Amazon picked up from cities is publicly available. What matters is the qualitative data cities offered up — they let Amazon in on their wildest dreams.
Corporate lawsuits are rarely riveting, but Tribune Media's $1 billion complaint against Sinclair Broadcasting is full of juicy details about an affair gone bad. Tribune Media pulled the plug in Aug in the proposed merger of the TV station operators after regulators signaled they would likely oppose it. The same day, Tribune filed a lawsuit in Delaware's state chancery court, blaming Sinclair for the failed deal. "Sinclair fought, threatened, insulted, and misled regulators in a misguided and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to retain control over stations that it was obligated to sell," Tribune Media alleges in the lawsuit.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Benton Foundation senior counselor and a law professor at Georgetown University's Institute for Public Representation who opposed the merger along with other activists against enlarging Sinclair, says he thinks Tribune may have the upper hand in the litigation because Sinclair "was the party that would not accept Department of Justice divestiture requests and stands accused of misrepresenting facts to the Federal Communications Commission." Nonetheless, Schwartzman says he expects Sinclair to continue its "track record as a hard-line and truculent litigant."
Tim Armstrong, a top Verizon executive, may be on the way out after struggling to turn the telecommunication company into a competitor to Google and Facebook, the Internet's preeminent digital advertising titans. Armstrong, the former AOL chief executive who joined Verizon when it purchased his company in 2015, is currently in charge of Oath, the Verizon subsidiary that contains AOL and Yahoo. Underscoring the story is the revelation that Verizon's digital advertising efforts have largely stalled.
Driving that underperformance is Oath's decision to behave differently from Google in its treatment of customer data. Instead of mining user information at every opportunity, Verizon asked its wireless customers to volunteer their Web browsing history and location information in exchange for certain freebies such as Uber rides and concert tickets. The behavioral data is regarded as extremely lucrative, because it gives Verizon the ability to target advertising more accurately and to charge marketers more. Given the choice, most of Verizon's 116.5 million wireless subscribers decided not to take the deal. Just 10 million of them have opted into the data-sharing program, known as Verizon Selects. By voting with their feet, consumers have spoken, said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, an electronic rights organization. "There’s been a global wake-up call — partly because of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook — about the loss of privacy for Americans — and so people are increasingly suspicious,” said Chester.
House Republicans withdrew from negotiations with Democrats over a pact that would have effectively barred both parties from using hacked or stolen material on the campaign trail in the fall of 2018. Leaders of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, and their counterparts at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had labored for much of the summer over rules that would have governed the way the congressionally run committees and their candidates treated material like the thousands of pages of damaging Democratic documents stolen and leaked by Russian hackers in 2016. Instead, the two parties were left exchanging shots just two months before Election Day; Republicans claimed that Democrats had negotiated in bad faith and violated an agreement not to speak about the negotiations publicly, and Democrats said that Republicans were merely searching for an excuse to pull out. It only fed the complaint by Democrats that Republican lawmakers have resisted bridging partisan divisions in the two years since Russia began its brazen attack on the American political system.
Voters are quickly becoming accustomed to the barrage of conversational, sometimes annoying and mostly unregulated text messages sent by political campaigns, often asking whether they can “count on your vote” while offering quick reminders on elections and initiatives. Peer-to-peer texting platforms can be a useful political tactic. They allow campaigns to get in touch with tens of millions of people, and the method was partially pioneered by Sen Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) campaign. But the federal government isn’t sure how to regulate them, potentially opening up texting to unaccountable money and suspicious texts. Campaigns, political action groups, grassroots groups and party organizations might send well over 100 million text messages this midterm cycle. “The problem with outdated laws is that unscrupulous people are going to use the loopholes,” said Gigi Sohn, Benton senior fellow and former senior adviser to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. "The FCC has to put some strong rules around peer-to-peer texting, and I think the responsible companies will welcome them.”
Government & Communications
President Trump: Justice Department should investigate anonymous op-ed author
President Donald Trump called for the Justice Department to investigate the anonymous author of an op-ed depicting a “resistance” inside the government and said he is considering taking legal action against the New York Times for publishing it. The column, published online Sept 5, was written by someone the Times identified only as a senior official in the Trump administration. “We’re going to take a look at what he had, what he gave, what he’s talking about, also where he is right now,” President Trump told reporters. If the anonymous author has a high-level security clearance, the president added, “and he goes into a high-level meeting concerning China or Russia or North Korea or something, I don’t want him in those meetings.” President Trump said that there is a national security imperative to root out the anonymous author, whom he called “a sick person.” He said Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who he has long criticized publicly in especially harsh terms — should use the investigative powers of the Justice Department to determine who authored the column. “I would say Jeff should be investigating who the author of that piece was because I really believe it’s national security,” President Trump said.
Google will appeal an order to extend the European Union’s “right to be forgotten” to its search engines across the globe, arguing before the EU’s top court that the order encourages countries to assert sovereignty beyond their borders. National laws used to stop at the border. In cyberspace, they increasingly stretch around the world, as regulators in Europe, the US and Canada have started asserting legal authority over the internet across country lines. That is thrusting global tech firms into a potentially costly legal morass, and setting the stage for conflict over who will—or should—regulate everything from free speech and privacy to cybercrime and taxes.
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) — we welcome your comments.
© Benton Foundation 2018. Redistribution of this email publication — both internally and externally — is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org
The Benton Foundation All Rights Reserved © 2018