Oct 30, 2009 (A Winning Spectrum Strategy)
BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for FRIDAY OCTOBER 30, 2009
The NTIA holds a workshop today on broadband data transparency http://bit.ly/4BcxF5
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network
Why is the media defending Fox and attacking Obama?
See also: Why Fox will outfox an ill-advised Obama
NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN
You Can't Coach Height: A Winning Spectrum Strategy
Community Anchor Institutions Need Big Broadband
NATOA Supports Big Broadband to Community Anchor Institutions
Connecting America through Broadband at the Library
THE STIMULUS
Why smart-grid, broadband stimulus applicants need each other
Missouri, Illinois make push for their share of billions in broadband grant money
Stimulus Fueled Much of Expansion
NET NEUTRALITY AND NETWORK MANAGEMENT
Is broadband metering really so bad?
Yeah, I'd Like Metered Broadband, Too — If It Were Actually Metered
After network neutrality, will we need "Google neutrality?"
Google Voice: we're not serving "high-cost destinations"
McDowell Speaks Out Against Wireless Broadband Network Neutrality Proposal
The case against the FCC's Network Neutrality plan
Network Neutrality: Spur to Entrepreneurship
Network Neutrality: Barrier to Broadband Investment
Microsoft, Yahoo Weigh In On FCC's Proposed 'Open Internet' Rules
Time for Network Neutrality
CONTENT
What TV shows are really selling
Increased demand for video in all its forms is hogging the pipes
8 Things You Should Know About TV Everywhere
Paid Internet TV Would Cut Nearly 8 Million Viewers
CYBERSECURITY
U.S. policy toward cyber attacks needs new focus, experts say
Leahy plans hearing to look at cybersecurity cooperation
JOURNALISM
Yes, journalists deserve subsidies too
New NAB President Meets With Genachowski
POLICYMAKERS
Google on hiring spree
CPB Names Education Execs
MORE ONLINE ...
Federal CTO: Smart Grid, E-Health Records and Broadband Need CIO Input
Pulling Forward the Benefits of Healthcare IT
Google co-founder Sergey Brin wants more computers in schools
Newspapers aren't doing as badly as you think
Balloon Boy Narrative Flies
HHS' IG plans audits for some health IT programs
Digital Data Make For A Really Permanent Record
Comcast NBC deal held up by various issues
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
FOX NEWS VIEWED AS MOST IDEOLOGICAL NETWORK
[SOURCE: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, AUTHOR: Andrew Kohut et al]
The Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing. Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they think of Fox News as "mostly conservative," 14% say it is "mostly liberal," and 24% say it is "neither in particular." Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%. The perceptions of those who regularly tune into these news networks are similar to those of the public. Nearly half (48%) of regular Fox viewers say the network is mostly conservative. About four-in-ten (41%) regular viewers of CNN describe the network as mostly liberal and 36% of regular MSNBC viewers say the same about that network.
benton.org/node/29288 | Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Recommend this Headline
back to top
WHY IS THE MEDIA DEFENDING FOX AND ATTACKING OBAMA?
[SOURCE: Salon.com, AUTHOR: Mike Madden]
[Commentary] By the time the White House got around to declaring that the administration had simply had enough of Fox News Channel, it wasn't exactly a surprise to anyone. On the face of it, there wasn't much to argue with when White House aides started saying most of the Fox News crew wasn't giving them a fair shot. Still, listening to some Beltway pundits react to the administration's decision, you might think the White House had ordered Fox boss Roger Ailes to be shipped off to Guantánamo. Fox News isn't exactly universally admired by other political reporters -- after all, the network's "Fair and Balanced" slogan is pretty obviously meant to be a shot at the rest of the press corps, and its cable news competitors get almost as many barbs from Fox as the administration does. But some talking heads from other news organizations started scolding the White House as soon as the battle was joined. For now, both sides in the fight probably think they're winning. The White House gets a boost from its allies, who like to see it battling back against Fox; the network gets higher ratings. As long as that continues, don't expect to see a truce any time soon. Don't expect to see much change in the way the rest of the press handles it, either. It's not personal -- it's just business.
benton.org/node/29287 | Salon.com
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN
A WINNING SPECTRUM STRATEGY
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Blair Levin]
[Commentary] Remember college football great Doug Flutie? He had a lot of great attributes. But he was 5' 10". And while he had some great moments, let's face it, he was destined to be a star... in Canadian football. He had a career very different from that of 6'2' Joe Montana, 6'4' Tom Brady, or 6'5' "Big Ben" Roethlisberger of Pittsburgh. The point is this: Unless we get more spectrum, we as a country are destined to be the Doug Flutie of mobile broadband. Spectrum is like height. If you don't have it, it's pretty hard to be in the big leagues. As they say, you can't coach height. Now it's not an exact analogy. Technology and other capital inputs can help overcome the lack of spectrum. But let's not kid ourselves. Lack of spectrum will mean that our mobile service will be more expensive and of a poorer quality than if we had more of it. And that's very bad news unless we figure out a way to solve that problem. Why? Mobile broadband is going to be the fastest growing segment in communications ecosystem. This is potentially a fantastic story for America. It's the story of an America where citizens have access to information everywhere, and where entrepreneurs have the opportunity to reach consumers in ways never before possible, were no one has to be a prisoner of geography. And, this story becomes even greater as we enter the era of pervasive computing, where devices and machines of every kind become "smart" by virtue of the wireless connections to the Internet. But none of this can happen without spectrum.
benton.org/node/29291 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top
COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS NEED BIG BROADBAND
[SOURCE: Schools Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition, AUTHOR: John Windhausen Jr]
In a filing at the Federal Communications Commission, the Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition says community anchor institutions need very high-bandwidth broadband connections to provide essential services, including remote medical care, distance learning, job training, access to e-government benefits, and many more. Because of the increasing prevalence of high-definition video and other bandwidth-intensive uses, these institutions need to upgrade their connections simply to maintain their current level of service, and they need even greater levels of bandwidth to plan for the future. They often need capacity of 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) or even 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps), which is far greater than the bandwidth needed by individual households. CAI use these high-capacity broadband capabilities to provide essential services to rural, low-income, disabled, the elderly, students, immigrants and many other underprivileged and vulnerable segments of the population. These reasons alone warrant treating community anchor institutions as significant cornerstones of the FCC's National Broadband Plan. Yet, there is another, equally important reason that community anchor institutions should be considered as essential building blocks of the National Broadband Plan open fiber connections to CAI can benefit the surrounding community.
benton.org/node/29286 | Schools Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NATOA SUPPORTS BIG BROADBAND TO COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS
[SOURCE: National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, AUTHOR: Ken Fellman, Tonya Rideout]
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors tell the Federal Communications Commission that connecting anchor institutions, such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and community colleges, to fiber optics is essential to the success of a National Broadband Plan. NATOA believes that the FCC will find that anchor institution networks, which join health, education, public safety, and governmental buildings are critical to the expansion of broadband services to the unserved and underserved. These networks are uniquely positioned to give the communities they serve the full benefit of the externalities of broadband services. This is achieved at prices and levels of capacity that are not available from traditional commercial broadband providers in the same communities. NATOA believes that the Gates Foundation study is accurate and helpful
benton.org/node/29285 | National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
Recommend this Headline
back to top
CONNECTING AMERICA THROUGH BROADBAND AT THE LIBRARY
[SOURCE: Connected Nation, AUTHOR: Laura Taylor]
Connected Nation conducted surveys to better understand the role of libraries as a community technology hub. In brief, the findings indicate that libraries are vital in filling an access void in local communities where the library is most often the only source of free Internet availability. According to Connected Nation findings, these library Internet users tend to be more assertively building skills through online learning opportunities, classes and training resources, improving employability through job searches and resume building, searching for healthcare information and communicating with care givers, and engaging with government online. Further, these library Internet users tend to represent more vulnerable segments of the population (e.g. low-income single parents) who will surely find themselves even more starkly separated from the digital "haves" if their library connectivity disappears or declines.
benton.org/node/29284 | Connected Nation
Recommend this Headline
back to top
THE STIMULUS
WHY SMART GRID, BROADBAND STIMULUS APPLICANTS NEED EACH OTHER
[SOURCE: TelephonyOnline, AUTHOR: Sarah Reedy]
This week the Department of Energy awarded $3.4 billion in stimulus funding to one-fourth of the 400 smart grid stimulus applicants spanning 49 states. The funding was the biggest single grant the DOE has given out in one day, but it's not the end of its awards. There is still $7.2 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding set aside for broadband grant hopefuls. According to Craig Settles, a consultant and founder of Successful.com, it's time to strike while the iron's hot. The two industries including those that won grants and those that want to proceed anyways are ripe for partnership. The community broadband projects that survive round one of broadband stimulus funding will be asked to go into a due diligence phase to refine their proposals to the National Telecommunications Industry Association (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Settles' advice is for those applicants to quickly get with smart-grid grant winners in their area and determine a way to work that project into their broadband proposal. And with the NTIA and RUS announcing today they will delay naming the recipients of broadband stimulus grants for at least one month, companies have time to get a head start. Securing a utility, an established customer, could be the difference between a broadband proposal with reasonable expectations of sustainability and one that is reliable and financially viable, he said.
benton.org/node/29283 | TelephonyOnline | Craig Settles
Recommend this Headline
back to top
STIMULUS FUELED MUCH OF EXPANSION
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: James Hagerty, Jon Hilsenrath]
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the nation's gross domestic product rose at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-through-September quarter, the clearest evidence yet that the country has begun to emerge from the deepest downturn in decades. But there were few signs in the new data that the private sector will be able to sustain that growth once the government pulls back, or that the rise will soon translate into an improving job market. The US economy would have turned in a far worse performance in the third quarter without help from the federal government. More than one percentage point of GDP growth in the third quarter came from car sales, driven in a large part by the temporary "cash for clunkers" program. After surging in July and August, retail car sales dropped 10.4% in September, suggesting the auto sector won't provide such a big boost again any time soon. Spending in the third quarter was also propped up by home building, which rose for the first time since 2005, by a whopping 23.4%, and contributed a half-percentage point to GDP growth. But much of the housing revival reflects government efforts to push down mortgage rates, prevent or at least slow foreclosures, and reward home buyers with tax credits. Goldman Sachs estimates that those efforts have pulled the national average home price 5% higher than it otherwise would be. For the expansion to be sustained -- let alone accelerate enough to create steady job growth -- businesses must gain enough confidence to invest in the future, consumers will need to once again make purchases absent government incentives, and buyers of American products abroad will need to open their wallets, economists said. Progress on those fronts is mixed. The good news is that the deck is now cleared for a recovery.
benton.org/node/29299 | Wall Street Journal | WashPost
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NET NEUTRALITY AND NETWORK MANAGEMENT
IS BROADBAND METERING REALLY SO BAD?
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Andrew Harries]
[Commentary] This chief executive of a company that makes telecom gear to meter bandwidth was against bandwidth metering before he was for it. But he asks why broadband, unlike most other services we purchase, costs the same regardless of how much we consume? See, we got trouble here in River City -- there's been a fourfold increase in demand over a period in which average supply increased by one or two orders of magnitude. To make matters worse, broadband prices have generally declined over the same period possibly not fast enough to satisfy some. But when coupled with the increase in average speed, the price-per-bit paid by consumers has dropped like a rock. From where does the capital come that is needed to expand broadband capacity further? Even the academics that populate "public interest" organizations lobbying for greater net regulation recognize, at least abstractly, that broadband operators need to earn a profit if they are to continue to invest in infrastructure. Given these circumstances, don't usage-based billing frameworks make sense? Unless consumers are satisfied with underinvestment in capacity or willing (as taxpayers) to foot the bill for additional investment in capacity, some form of usage-based billing structure may be inevitable.
benton.org/node/29282 | Financial Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
METERED BROADBAND FINE IF ACTUALLY METERED
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Stacey Higginbotham]
[Commentary] Broadband wasn't marketed as a flat-rate service solely because of technical limitations. It was marketed as such in order to get people to sign up for it. This is how companies, even back in the dial-up days, got people to go online and explore. Speed is still a huge element of the ISPs' marketing, even if many folks can't tell the difference between a web page loading at 5Mbps and 15Mbps. So why push speeds? Because people can tell the difference between tiers for heavy-data services such as video steaming and large downloads. Carriers may complain that we're using more broadband, but they are actively exploiting that demand in their marketing of faster (and more expensive) service tiers to customers. But they want to exploit their customers' wallets as well. And here's where I have the biggest issue with Harries' article. He bases his entire argument about metered billing, when in fact he's talking not about true meters but about a consumption- or usage-based plan analogous to those offered by cell phone companies. When ISPs talk about meters they're talking about different service tiers that don't reflect actual usage, but herd customers into set plans where most will be paying a monthly fee for more than they use. And if they go over their tier, they get walloped with fees.
benton.org/node/29290 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top
AFTER NET NEUTRALITY, WILL WE NEED "GOOGLE NEUTRALITY?"
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Nate Anderson]
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mounted a recent push to turn network neutrality "principles" into official regulations—and in doing so has stirred up the net neutrality hornet's nest once again. The issues involved are thorny when you wade deep into the weeds, but consumer-level support for network neutrality seems largely driven by simple principle: AT&T should not be "speeding up" websites with deep pockets, leaving everyone else to languish in the slow lane. This was famously what AT&T Chairman Ed Whitacre wanted to do back in 2005 when he declared that Internet companies would not be able to "use my pipes free." The scheme that he envisioned was a basic bit of price discrimination; charge extra fees to those who could afford to pay in order to maximize profits. But here's the thing—price discrimination happens all the time (US college fees vary widely based on one's ability to pay, for instance). And while ISPs are one obvious chokepoint on the Internet, they aren't the only one. Massive search engines like Google can easily become another, and it might not be long before the government needs to think about other forms of "neutrality."
benton.org/node/29281 | Ars Technica
Recommend this Headline
back to top
GOOGLE VOICE: WE'RE NOT SERVING "HIGH-COST DESTINATIONS"
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
Google has told the Federal Communications Commission that its Google Voice feature maintains a small list of do-not-transfer numbers that lead to certain "high-cost destinations." The explanation comes in response to an inquiry letter that the FCC sent to Google on October 9, and that was widely perceived as a response to complaints about the service from AT&T. The FCC asked Google if it uses third-party providers to maintain that list. Yes, it does, Google says, but details about the providers are redacted from the letter. Google responds that it is not a common or telecommunications carrier, because the service is mostly free (Google Voice only charges for international calls), and because it is only offered on an "invitation only" basis. Consumers who want to try Google Voice can apply via the service's request an invite page. The company says it uses this system "to minimize disruptions" that would result from an overflow of customers signing up at once, but hopes to eventually run the service without the invitation system.
benton.org/node/29280 | Ars Technica | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top
MCDOWELL SPEAKS OUT AGAINST WIRELESS BROADBAND NETWORK NEUTRALITY PROPOSAL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Speaking at a Progress and Freedom Foundation event, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell cautioned the FCC not to allow the understandable uncertainty about new technology to "lure us into unwarranted regulation, which may be difficult or impossible to reverse." Riffing off an article by economist Ronald Coase that argued for a free market, rather than a government-controlled market, for spectrum, Commissioner McDowell said "lawyers and economists should not be so overwhelmed by the emergence of new technologies as to change the existing legal and economic system without first making quite certain that this is required." Citing the open access conditions put on the 700 MHz spectrum auctions, McDowell warned that, depending on how the FCC's network neutrality proposal shakes out, "we might one day point to the open access mandates in the 700 MHz auctions as the first step towards network management regulation of the wireless sector."
benton.org/node/29279 | Broadcasting&Cable | Text of speech
Recommend this Headline
back to top
THE CASE AGAINST THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY PLAN
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Larry Downes]
[Commentary] The basic thrust of the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Network Neutrality rules is to keep broadband Internet access providers from managing last-mile network traffic in ways that discriminate, pro or con, based on content, applications, or devices. Access providers would be banned from restricting or throttling services that the provider doesn't like, for example, perhaps because they compete with more expensive alternatives the provider or one of its business partner offers. The proposed rules would apply to all broadband access, including wireless. The document itself asks more than 100 questions, including whether the new rules are necessary, whether the commission should enforce them without detailed regulations but instead on a "case by case" basis, and even whether the commission has the legal authority to enact new rules in the first place. Downes has three major concerns: 1) the FCC's reliance on "ancillary jurisdiction" to justify its legal authority to adopt and enforce network neutrality rules, 2) Even if the FCC has the power to issue new rules, there are enough exceptions to render them toothless, and 3) The risk of non-neutral behavior is significant, but the cost of regulation and the potential for unintended consequences may be higher.
benton.org/node/29278 | C-Net|News.com
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NET NEUTRALITY: SPUR TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Mitchell Baker, John Lilly]
[Commentary] These Mozilla executives support the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Network Neutrality rules. An open wireless network, built on the same principles as the extremely successful wired network, will unleash investment, innovation and job growth that could be a major driver in our economic recovery. Those who oppose neutrality claim that government involvement—even to ensure an open and competitive market—is somehow bad for business. This claim is wrong and cannot be left unchallenged. It contradicts the history of the Internet, and threatens its foundations. The fundamental technologies of the Internet have always been open; the FCC's proposed rules would merely preserve that openness. The principle that any "bit" of information is treated the same as any other bit is a defining characteristic of the Internet; it is a central aspect of the design that has lead to the unprecedented impact of the Internet on our lives.
benton.org/node/29298 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NET NEUTRALITY: BARRIER TO INVESTMENT
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen Jim DeMint (R-SC)]
[Commentary] The Internet is one of the only aspects of our economy and national life free from government regulation. Chairman Julius Genachowski and his Federal Communications Commission colleagues see this as a bad thing. These senators disagree. If the Internet were invented by a politician or worse, managed by bureaucrats, cell phones would still look like bricks and the information superhighway would still be a dirt road. If there is any sector of our economy where competition is so fierce and where the pace of innovation is so rapid that government interference would only get in the way, it is the Internet and telecommunications market. The Internet has grown because of a virtuous and mutually beneficial circle: network operators provide ever-increasing speed and bandwidth; content providers one-up each other with game-changing innovations; and consumers adapt and adopt at lightning speed. Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the opposite. Bandwidth is finite—like the finite number of lanes on a highway—and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate the burgeoning traffic. As they invest billions of private dollars in new and improved networks, they should rightly expect to set prices and manage those networks as they see fit.
benton.org/node/29297 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top
MICROSOFT, YAHOO WEIGH IN ON NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: BroadbandCensus.com, AUTHOR: Winter Casey]
Microsoft and Yahoo on Thursday gingerly weighed into the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Network Neutrality rules. "Yahoo! believes that all stakeholders - consumers, ISPs, online portals, Congress, the FCC and the FTC - should find a consensus on how best to ensure that Americans have access to a world-class Internet and an increasingly competitive online environment," said Yahoo! spokeswoman Nina Blackwell. "We have modeled openness on our network - prominent examples include our new front page and cloud computing issues." "Microsoft supports the right of consumers to access Internet content, services, and applications of their choice and to connect any non-harmful device to their broadband connections," said a Microsoft spokesman. "We also believe that Congress should ensure that network operators are able to offer last mile service enhancements and tiers of service, either to consumers or to online service providers and that those enhanced offerings must not unfairly interfere with the ability of consumers to access online content, products, and services of their choice or with the ability of online providers to deliver their products to consumers over the network operator's facilities," the spokesman continued.
benton.org/node/29296 | BroadbandCensus.com
Recommend this Headline
back to top
TIME FOR NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: The Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)]
[Commentary] I strongly believe that we must enshrine basic principles of openness and fairness into the rules governing how Internet service providers operate -- giving the Federal Communications Commission the authority to be the proverbial cop on the cyber beat, to ensuring that these principles of freedom and competition are upheld in the marketplace. In this way we can preserve the best of what the Internet is even as it continues to evolve. The FCC has taken an historic step. Still, we should also ensure that future administrations do not cast aside net neutrality rules. To prevent this from happening, I believe it would be useful to incorporate these principles into law. The Internet Freedom Preservation Act: Stipulates that unfettered access to the Internet to offer, access, and utilize content, services, and applications is vital for consumers and our economy; States that our country's global leadership in high technology stems directly from Internet policies that embraced competition and openness, ensuring that telecommunications networks are open to all lawful uses by all users - policies that now may be under threat if the ability of Internet content, service, and application providers to reach consumers were frustrated by interference from broadband telecommunications network operators; Calls for the United States to adopt a clear network neutrality policy preserving the open nature of Internet communications and networks based on non-discrimination while also permitting Internet service providers to take action to protect network reliability, prevent unwanted electronic mail, and thwart illegal content consistent with the overarching principle of non-discrimination; Directs the FCC to promulgate rules that ensure that providers of Internet access service abide by the duties established in the bill, including not blocking or impeding consumers' ability to access lawful content, applications or service; not preventing consumers from attaching any lawful device that does not harm the provider's network; and providing consumers with detailed information about their Internet service; Makes clear that nothing in this legislation affects any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content. Our bill applies these network neutrality principles only to lawful Internet content. It does not undermine carriers' ability to perform network management, nor does it hinder carriers' capacity to fight piracy, or spam, or impact parents' ability to utilize content controls.
benton.org/node/29295 | Huffington Post, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top
CONTENT
WHAT TV SHOWS ARE REALLY SELLING
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: N.E. Marsden]
[Commentary] Any time a persuader can pay to embed messages in mass media without the public's full awareness, citizens are at risk. Today, product placement is considered a legitimate revenue stream in the television industry, raising concern that some producers may be paid to showcase guns and, by extension, gun violence, on television. Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles warned in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing last year that marketing drugs in television story lines poses serious risks to consumers; the same can be said for marketing weapons, alcohol, tobacco, gambling and junk food. Using branded products to convey realism is one thing; accepting a payment to "place" a product in a story line is a Trojan horse of another color. When a portrayal is "induced by consideration" (a payment), the product will usually be shown in a positive light, even glamorized, injecting promotional bias that is anticipated in advertising but that may slip under the radar in other contexts. Beginning Dec. 1, the Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers and, more important, stealth corporate marketers to post "clear and conspicuous" disclosures when they receive payment for endorsing products online. Though the details have been hotly contested, the principle is sound: People have a right to know when someone is trying to sell them something. The Federal Communications Commission is considering rule amendments that would (1) make disclosures more salient to the audience, (2) extend disclosure rules to satellite and cable networks and (3) ban product placement in programs for children under 12. Because media providers are blurring the line between advertising and content, FCC action is critical. Parents have a right to know who is doctoring the programs their children watch, and citizens have a responsibility to hold companies accountable for their marketing practices. But without full transparency, the public is in the dark and youths are at risk.
benton.org/node/29292 | Washington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top
INCREASED DEMAND FOR VIDEO IN ALL FORMS IS HOGGING THE PIPES
[SOURCE: MediaPost, AUTHOR: Matthew Gonnering]
[Commentary] Now that we're in the digital age, Internet traffic volumes are giving way to traffic jams that can bring business operations to a grinding halt. The primary driver is the explosion of Internet video. Its exponentially larger file sizes and bandwidth requirements strain the infrastructure, challenging organizations to meet the ever-growing demand. And more is added daily at a rate of 33 minutes of video per second. This increased demand creates four issues that require more efficiency in managing video content: 1) Supply and demand -- Every video file opened places a demand on bandwidth. For example, a 150 mb 90-second video requires there be enough bandwidth not only to push 150 MB through, but to do so in 90 seconds. Otherwise the viewer will experience pauses and stuttered playback. Delivering 150 mb in 90 seconds equates to a bit rate of 13.3. If 10 people watch a file simultaneously, you'll need an Internet pipe that can handle 133 Mbps. 2) Moving video files from one user to another. Most email mailboxes and file-sharing systems have limits on the size of files they can move and store. They are not equipped to meet the requirements of even simple videos, making it difficult to share or upload files. 3) Multiple copies, multiple locations -- As video is made available to customers on the Web, each copy increases the amount of storage required. 4) Lack of "search" ability -- Video files are often stored on a network using office-document based filing systems - with a separation between video for internal and external use. It may work now, but the proliferation of video will require a metadata-based search function that doesn't yet exist.
benton.org/node/29274 | MediaPost
Recommend this Headline
back to top
8 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT TV EVERYWHERE
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Andrew Hampp]
Here's what TV Everywhere is, isn't and needs to be in the next eight months before the initiative misses its chance to make computers the ultimate DVR for consumers. 1) In short, it's an attempt to make broadcast and cable programming available online, on-demand and free with a cable subscription. 2) It isn't Hulu for cable. 3) Turner, Rainbow Media, Comcast Entertainment and Scripps Networks are the first cable network groups to sign on for the early trials along with CBS. 4) The ad model is a TV-length commercial ad load.
benton.org/node/29276 | AdAge
Recommend this Headline
back to top
PAID INTERNET TV WOULD CUT NEARLY 8 MILLION VIEWERS
[SOURCE: MediaPost, AUTHOR: Wayne Friedman]
"TV Everywhere" efforts won't be TV for everyone -- as 7.7 million viewers could be out of the loop. That is, those who won't pay a fee to watch TV programs online -- shows they are currently seeing for free. The 7.7 million is the number that Los Angeles-based media researcher Interpret says could be left in the lurch if the cable industry gets its way. It means some 11% of all U.S. active streamers of video, which number around 71 million. With "TV Everywhere" initiatives, it is cable operators' intention to ensure that those who watch free TV on the Internet are also cable customers. The companies don't want Internet-only viewing coming at cable's expense. For those who are not cable subscribers, the goal would be to get nearly 8 million streaming video users to pay some sort of fee to access premium TV shows online. The largest group affected will be lower average-income viewers -- especially younger adults 18-34. Many of these viewers stream video on the Internet rather than pay the much higher expense of a monthly cable or satellite service.
benton.org/node/29275 | MediaPost
Recommend this Headline
back to top
CYBERSECURITY
CYBERSECURITY NEEDS NEW FOCUS
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Grant Gross]
US policies toward defending against cyber warfare need to take a different approach than the government has against other forms of attack, three cybersecurity experts said Thursday. It will be difficult for the US government to voice and follow through with a policy of cyber deterrence, like it has with nuclear attacks, said Martin Libicki, a senior management scientist specializing in cybersecurity at Rand, a nonprofit think tank. First, it's difficult to identify attackers, especially when some nations appear to be sponsoring private attackers, he said during a meeting of the Congressional Cyber Caucus. But it may also be difficult for the U.S. to follow through with threats of counter attacks, when U.S. cyber experts don't know how much damage the attacks could do, he added. With cyber attacks, some countries may be willing to gamble on the U.S. capability, unlike with nuclear attacks, he said.
benton.org/node/29270 | IDG News Service
Recommend this Headline
back to top
LEAHY PLANS HEARING TO LOOK AT CYBERSECURITY
[SOURCE: CongressDaily, AUTHOR: Andrew Noyes]
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy will soon hold a hearing to examine how federal agencies are working together to prepare for and combat high-tech attacks. Leahy's chief privacy counsel, Lydia Griggsby, said the panel will ask witnesses about ways cybersecurity programs can be improved at the Justice and Homeland Security departments. That came as a key Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs panel announced a similar hearing for today that will focus on how agencies can better use taxpayer dollars to protect mission-critical networks.
benton.org/node/29269 | CongressDaily
Recommend this Headline
back to top
JOURNALISM
YES, JOURNALISTS DESERVE SUBSIDIES TOO
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Robert McChesney, John Nichols]
[Commentary] Newspaper newsrooms, once packed with reporters, are disappearing, and neither broadcast nor digital media are filling the void. For the first time in American history, we are nearing a point where we will no longer have more than minimal resources (relative to the nation's size) dedicated to reporting the news. The prospect that this "information age" could be characterized by unchecked spin and propaganda, where the best-financed voice almost always wins, and cynicism, ignorance and demoralization reach pandemic levels, is real. So, too, is the threat to the American experiment. Our Constitution is, the Supreme Court reminds us, predicated on the assumption of an informed and participating citizenry. If insufficient news media exist to make that a realistic outcome, the foundation crumbles. The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media. Saving newspapers may be impossible. But we can save journalism. Step one is to begin debating ways for enlightened public subsidies to provide a competitive and independent digital news media. Also, we should greatly expand funding for public and community media, and establish policies that help convert dying daily newspapers into post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet. If we do so, journalism and democracy will not just survive. They will flourish. [McChesney and Nichols are the founders of Free Press, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to media reform.]
benton.org/node/29293 | Washington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NAB MEETS WITH GENACHOWSKI
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
On October 28, new National Association of Broadcasters President Gordon Smith, NAB Joint Board Chair Steven Newberry and General Counsel Jane Mago all met with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski. Smith made a pitch for "modest" media ownership reform, suggesting it would help preserve "quality journalism." He also put in a plug for reinstating the minority tax certificate program as a way to promote diversity, though that reinstatement will have to come from Congress.
benton.org/node/29289 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top