October 2009

[Commentary] Those who repeatedly pronounce the death of the wireline telecom business — the typical leap of logic that follows most reports of access line loss — often overlook some important facts about the world outside of Bell territory. Rural markets typically face less competition from cable and wireless and generate healthy cash flow.

[Commentary] The Food and Drug Administration likely will play an increasingly important role in regulating health information technology. A hearing, "Promotion of FDA-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools," set for mid-November is intended to help guide FDA in making policy decisions on how the Internet and social media tools (e.g., blogs, microblogs, podcasts, social networking sites, online communications, video sharing, widgets, and wikis) can be used to promote FDA-regulated medical products -- including human and animal drugs and biologics, and medical devices -- in a truthful, non-misleading, and balanced manner. Specific questions that will be addressed at the meeting include: For what online communications will manufacturers, packers or distributors be held accountable? How can manufacturers, packers and distributors fulfill regulatory requirements (e.g., fair balance) in their Internet and social network promotions? What parameters should apply to the posting of corrective information on Web sites controlled by third parties? When is the use of links appropriate? In addition, FDA is seeking public comment on Internet adverse event reporting.

Hundreds of billions of gigabytes of health information are now being collected. As more organizations implement health IT, more data will be produced and the potential for secondary use of data will grow. The data that could be mined from the US health system can be re-used to improve patient care, predict public health trends, reduce healthcare costs, and get drugs to market faster and safer. This report offers specific recommendations for providers, payers, and pharmaceutical companies to consider in leveraging electronic health data.

[Commentary] Through retransmission consent fees, broadcast TV stations get twenty-five to fifty cents per cable subscriber per month. That fee needs to rise to $3 per subscriber. How's that gonna happen? One way would be for networks to negotiate on behalf of all its affiliates. Another option is far more radical and riskier. But maybe radical and risky is the way broadcasters should be thinking these days. This approach involves undermining the compulsory copyright license, which permits cable and satellite operators to carry local TV stations with their patchwork of local, syndicated and network programming without having to pay royalties to the stations or any of the other copyright owners. The license goes back to 1976. Congress concluded that cable carriage of TV stations was a good idea, but that it would be near impossible for the many tiny cable systems in the then unconsolidated industry to negotiate copyright deals with each and every TV station. So it created a blanket copyright license that cable systems could use to carry local TV signals for free. They would have to pay modest royalties set by the government to import distant signals, however. The license is compulsory in the sense that copyright holders really have no say in the matter. They are forced to license their programming cable systems. Disney and NBCU have been pushing the idea of overturning the license in Washington. As major copyright and station owners, they think it makes sense for themselves and, as operators of broadcast networks, they think it makes sense for their affiliates and broadcasting as a whole. Their plan would allow TV stations to stick with the current compulsory license/must carry/retransmission consent regime. Or, they could opt for a free-market approach, under which cable and satellite could no longer hide from copyright payments under the compulsory license. Stations would aggregate licensing rights from the networks, syndicators and other copyright holders whose programming fill their schedules and then turn around and license those same rights to the cable and satellite operators for big, fat payments. Or at least that's the hope.