December 2009

Where are all the bad actors?

[Commentary] The Network Neutrality debate has been raging since at least 2002; buildings full of lawyers in Washington have been scrutinizing service provider behavior; by the Federal Communications Commission's own admission over "100,000 pages of input in approximately 40,000 filings" have been reviewed; organizations like Free Press have ratcheted into rhetorical overdrive; and the best we can come up with is ... Madison River? Aside from the fact that Madison River is an old story about a small player that no longer exists, the FCC dealt with that incident quite handily using its existing regulatory power. Once the behavior was uncovered, regulatory cops swooped in and whacked Madison River. A similar case can be made for the much less onerous behavior by Comcast — problem found, problem corrected, no further action required. When this debate began, the lack of bad actors didn't weaken the net neutrality cause. It was certainly possible that broadband operators could use their facilities in nefarious ways, and interest groups lobbying to protect consumers were right to flag this concern. But now, after almost eight years of arguing, the lack of bad actors (except for the eternal Madison River) severely weakens the cause. Not that the open Internet isn't a social good, but that existing regulatory tools satisfactorily protect it.

A Common Sense Approach to Network Neutrality

[Commentary] There are two compelling sides to the Network Neutrality issue before the Federal Communications Commission that can be solved by cutting through the rhetoric and making a few common sense and objective decisions about what is at the crux of the problem. The power of discrimination lays solely in the hands of the Comcast's, AT&T's, Time Warner Cable's, Verizon's, and other providers of the ISP pipelines. This is a huge social responsibility for private sector companies in controlling the complexities of sharing access to all who ask. To solve the issue the FCC can take either of two paths in ensuring openness and fairness to all concerned, with both large and small stakes, in both getting where they need to go and receiving what needs to receive, via broadband. One path is to let the market sort itself out; in that encouraging competition within the marketplace between ISP providers will create less of a reason for providers to favor one entity over another or risk losing customers to the competition. An alternative path would be to mandate all ISP providers open their networks to competitors and set standards for download and upload speeds, thereby ensuring everyone is treated equal.

Why the Comcast-NBCU Acquisition is Possible: A Glance at Recent History

Many analysts have identified the proposed acquisition between Comcast and NBC Universal (NBCU) as the first example of vertical integration in the communications marketplace of the Digital Age. Few have pointed out, however, that the regulatory framework that allows for such an unprecedented combination of assets is also a 21st century phenomenon. Less than a decade ago, this combination would have been against Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations - indeed, it would have been merely a business executive's dream. What makes this acquisition attempt possible today is the drastic, systematic deregulation in media policy that has taken place over the last 20 years. If allowed to go through, the Comcast-NBCU deal would result in unprecedented consolidation in media. For the first time, it would allow a single company to control both the cable system and a broadcast station in a dozen of the largest U.S. media markets. Folks living in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, and other major cities would receive their household cable hookup from the same source that runs their local NBC broadcast station. As a result, Comcast would be more tempted to discriminate against its competitors online by charging higher fees to rival cable providers for access to NBC content, or by blocking the access of other programmers to its network, as it has attempted to do in the past. Comcast customers could also be left with higher monthly cable bills. No company in history has enjoyed such extensive powers of control over how the public shares and receives information, and how that information is produced. Why is a deal like this being considered now? Not as a result of pure coincidence. Before 2002, federal regulations prohibited exactly such business arrangements.

Comcast-NBC U merger could hurt consumers

[Commentary] What can consumers expect from the marriage of Comcast and NBC Universal? Higher prices for cable television and Internet access. Less local, diverse programming and independent media. More sensationalism and even fewer family-friendly content choices. If you think you're already paying too much to watch TV or go online, if you care about open and unfettered Internet access, or if you worry about what your kids see, you have good reason to object to this wedding. And you'd better speak now or forever pay the price. The merger would eliminate some of the critical competition that normally occurs among content distributors such as Comcast, content programmers such as NBC, and content producers such as Universal Studios. Instead of bargaining hard, a Comcast-NBC U behemoth would be likely to favor its own programming, squeezing more independent channels out of basic-cable tiers to make room for more Comcast-NBC content. Moreover, a merged company would have the market power to gouge its competitors, pushing up prices for Verizon FiOS, DirecTV, the DISH Network, and smaller cable companies. In other words, a Comcast-NBC U merger could mean higher prices even for those who get their programming elsewhere. And if Comcast gets control of NBC Universal's marquee content, it will have every incentive to move online video offerings behind a "pay wall," as it has already done with the online video product known as TV Everywhere. If you wanted to watch NBC Universal shows online, you might have to be a Comcast subscriber.

[Josh Silver is the executive director of Free Press, a nonprofit media reform group. Tim Winter is president of the Parents Television Council, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children and families from graphic sex, violence, and profanity in entertainment.]

Comcast-NBCU Is Bad For Broadcasting

A Q&A with Media Access Project President Andy Schwartzman on the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. He says he's unhappy about vertical integration in the media market to begin with. The Comcast-NBC deal is especially troublesome because the cable programming market has been too difficult to crack. This combination gives Comcast all the more reason to make it difficult for new and interesting programmers to get carriage. It will also make it much harder for competitors like the phone companies and the satellite companies to get programming under similar terms and conditions. So it will adversely affect viewer choice. He also thinks the deal is likely to raise cable rates. In those cities where Comcast is the dominant cable company as well as the owner of an NBC station, there will be a lot of problems for the other network affiliates. The ability to sell advertising across platforms will give a distinct edge to the Comcast stations. While [Comcast CEO] Brian Roberts talks about paying for retransmission consent, the fact that he can get the NBC content for free is going to give him more leverage in retransmission consent negotiations with other affiliates.

Small cable companies worried about Comcast-NBC deal

What does Comcast's proposed marriage with NBC Universal mean for small cable companies? "Nothing good," said Matthew Polka, president and CEO of the American Cable Association. Polka said the merger will consolidate major programming assets, presenting "a serious threat to the financial stability of smaller operators." ACA represents about 900 small operators, some of which provide services to only a few hundred customers. Its members provide television, phone and Internet services, often in areas not served big firms like Comcast, Time Warner Cable or Cablevision. They don't have ties to content companies such as Disney, so they have to negotiate with the larger content providers access to cable programming, Polka said.

Smartphone Software Gets Smarter, More Interactive

New software gathers vast amounts of information -- not just a person's whereabouts, but also such data as interests, buying habits, even social circles. Known as context-aware software, the technology then harnesses that information to provide useful tools to a smartphone user. For years, technology has been able to pick up a person's location through Global Positioning System satellites that deliver up-to-the-minute traffic and mapping data. But only recently have electronics been able to put a person's location into a larger context. By 2012, the market for information about a person's context will rise to $12 billion, according to research firm Gartner.

Tech Gadgets That Know and Share Too Much About Us

[Commentary] Over the next decade, systems that track and record our movement through physical space will be woven inextricably into everyday life. Already we operate some location-based systems: dashboard navigation systems, smartphones with GPS features, and electronic tags that help us zip through toll stations. But in the coming years, location-aware tools will become more common, sophisticated, and indispensable. There are good reasons for people to be nervous about this: Locational records convey where we travel and with whom; where we have lunch and with whom; which political meetings we attend; where we go to church; what kinds of nightclubs we frequent; with whom we conduct business meetings; and with whom we spend the night. The records won't be available to everyone, but they will likely be sold to advertisers and made available to law enforcement, hackers, lawyers in divorce cases and other civil lawsuits, and to nosy employees of the companies that build location-tracking systems. In countries with repressive political systems, location-tracking records may also be made available to secret police forces. These constitute threats to privacy that must be taken seriously.
[Eckersley is a staff technologist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates online privacy and free speech.]

Context-Aware Technology Goes to Court

In court cases involving corporations, lawyers for plaintiffs often struggle to determine which employees knew that fraud or some other illegal activity was happening. Reconstructing the context surrounding the event can be painstaking as investigators wade through thousands or even millions of e-mail messages. The task has become even more challenging in recent years as new forms of communication—instant messaging, text messages, or social media postings—have become more pervasive. That means it's less likely for investigators to find a single "smoking gun" e-mail message or memo. Cataphora's software overcomes this challenge by correlating and analyzing different types of communications to try to create context. "In the time we've been in business, the average size of e-mail text has shrunk about 50%," says Elizabeth Charnock, CEO of Cataphora, a maker of software that helps organizations understand complex employee behavior patterns by analyzing electronic communications. Using software to track the larger context around employee relationships can be used to incriminate—or acquit—defendants.

France's Sarkozy takes on Google in books dispute

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Tuesday he would not let his country's literary heritage be taken away by a "friendly" large American company, in a thinly veiled challenge to Google. France is anxious to avoid French-language literature being swallowed by major international digitisation projects and is looking to create its own national digital champion. "We won't let ourselves be stripped of our heritage to the benefit of a big company, no matter how friendly, big or American it is," Sarkozy said, without naming Google. At a public round table meeting in eastern France, the president said digitisation of books would be one of the projects financed by a planned national loan, which is due to pump billions of euros into strategic investments in 2010.

Benton

Search