January 2010

Public interest groups call for antitrust probe of TV Everywhere

Later today, Free Press and other public advocacy groups will call for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate an industry-wide strategy by television service providers that they say will strap users to unnecessarily high monthly subscription fees and stifle competition. The groups want a government probe of the "TV Everywhere" plan by cable, satellite and phone companies that brings television shows and movies to computers and devices, but only for those that subscribe to both television and high-speed Internet services. The result, the groups say, would allow Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Verizon and Direct TV to unfairly maintain dominance over the burgeoning online video industry by elbowing out online video competitors such as Apple, Hulu and Vuze.

Cable companies are by far the largest providers of paid video services. Comcast, the nation's biggest cable and Internet service provider, launched its version of TV Everywhere, called XFinity, two weeks ago, allowing subscribers of Internet and television services to access some shows for free over computers and devices. Time Warner Cable and other television service providers are conducting trials of similar services and are expected to follow suit. The public interest groups allege collusion between video service providers such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Verizon and Direct TV to keep video content behind a subscription-based pay wall.

Fox-Time Warner Cable deal could mean billions for broadcasters

Time Warner Cable's agreement to pay News Corp. for over-the-air television programming has opened the door for broadcasters to demand as much as $5 billion a year from pay-TV providers and their subscribers, analysts said. The companies agreed on a distribution deal Jan. 1, without disclosing the terms. Other broadcasters have also said they may seek payment for programming that's currently free. CBS has a deal with Comcast, the largest U.S. cable operator, that ends next year, and already collects fees from Time Warner Cable and Dish Network. News Corp. sought as much as $1 a month per Time Warner Cable subscriber for rights to Fox, home of "The Simpsons" and "American Idol," two people with knowledge of the matter said. If other networks seek similar terms, cable operators may have to fork out as much as $5 billion a year -- and would probably pass the cost on to subscribers, said Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in New York. "The broadcast networks are really struggling to find a viable business model," Moffett said. "They're looking at the cable networks that make money both on advertising and the money that the cable operators pay them and saying, 'We need a dual revenue stream to survive, too.'"

Mobile TV Gets Closer As Backers Cut a Path

Watching live television broadcasts on mobile devices is common in some countries, but not the U.S. A new effort is taking shape to change that. A group of broadcasters plans to use this week's Consumer Electronics Show to promote their plans to deliver news, sports, weather and other local content to users on the go. While cellphones are an obvious target, backers of the effort also expect users to receive local programming on laptop computers, portable DVD players and devices in cars. Results may not come quickly, or easily. Competition for users' attention is stiff, including an array of on-demand video offerings for mobile devices as well as another mobile broadcasting network that is trying to build a U.S. audience. Local broadcasters—many of whom are grappling with a steep decline in advertising revenue—must bear the initial costs of developing the new business while waiting for advertisers to support it, says Gordon Borrell, chief executive of the market-research firm Borrell Associates. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has discussed shifting some frequencies being used for mobile TV to broadband services. Such hurdles aren't deterring the Open Mobile Video Coalition, a group of 800 local broadcasters and industry executives formed in 2007 to push the concept. They call their technology Mobile DTV, distinguishing it from past portable television sets that received analog signals.

Shielding journalists in the Internet era

[Commentary] Despite some initial hedging, the Obama administration has embraced the idea of shield legislation, while insisting on concessions -- some of them excessive -- to law enforcement. The result in both the Senate and House bills is a qualified privilege that would allow journalists to protect sources and documents unless identifying them was necessary to save lives, protect children from abuse or prevent a criminal prosecution from collapsing. Even then, in most cases a judge would be obliged to weigh the public interest in gathering or disseminating news against the public interest in compelling disclosure. There is one area in which both bills need to be strengthened in an eventual conference committee. The bill considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee limited protection to "a person who is engaged in journalism." As amended by the panel, the definition of a "covered person" is someone who writes or reports for the print media and cable or broadcast news services. There is a reference to the "electronic" delivery of news, but online journalists understandably complain that they aren't explicitly protected. They have a similar grievance with the House bill, which defines a covered person as someone for whom journalism represents "a substantial portion of the person's livelihood" or produces "substantial financial gain." Obviously not everyone who commits thoughts to cyberspace is a journalist in the sense intended by Auden. A shield law shouldn't protect libelous gossip on a teenager's MySpace page. But in the Internet era, not every public-spirited journalist works for a traditional newspaper or broadcast operation, and some don't work at all in the sense of receiving a regular paycheck. The final version of this overdue law should reflect that reality. (12/31)

Nets Blur No-Pay-For-Interviews Policy

Policies forbidding payment for news interviews increasingly seem like the network television equivalent of the 55 mph speed limit: a rule often winked at unless you're heading into a speed trap. Three of the past month's accidental celebrities — Jasper Schuringa, who helped thwart an attack on a Detroit-bound plane; David Goldman, who took a custody fight for his son to Brazil; and the White House party-crashing Salahis — have either sought or received goodies from TV networks eager to hear their stories. Policies against paying for interviews are in place to avoid distorting the news. The concern is that news subjects will change their stories to make them more valuable or please those who paid them. Evasion efforts seem centered primarily on ultra-competitive morning news shows and prime-time magazines. These outlets now fight for stories that might have been considered tabloid fodder years ago, often against Web sites or other outlets that won't hesitate to pay for an interview or information. News organizations now frequently pay interview subjects for the use of personal photos or videos. Both CNN and ABC paid for a Schuringa photo, reportedly thousands of dollars, and insisted they were not paying for an interview. Yet the Web site Gawker.com said Shai Ben-Ami, a Schuringa friend who was helping arrange media appearances, made it clear the Dutch hero wouldn't speak to an outlet that didn't buy rights to a photo. Ben-Ami would not comment to The Associated Press.

News Sites Dabble With a Web Tool for Nudging Local Officials

SeeClickFix.com is a local advocacy Web site that lets users write about issues to encourage communication between residents and local government. SeeClickFix users post a complaint about problems that occur within a set of boundaries on a Google Map, like graffiti at a bus stop or potholes on a busy street, and the site communicates the problem to the appropriate government agency and marks the problem on the map. Users can comment on the issue or label it resolved. Government agencies can post on the site to respond to residents, and journalists can use the site to communicate with readers and see which issues are most pressing to people. Ben Berkowitz, the chief executive of SeeClickFix, said the tool went beyond government: "Anyone can be held accountable: a business, nonprofit, even a private citizen."

Pentagon computer-network defense command delayed by congressional concerns

The Pentagon's plan to set up a command to defend its global network of computer systems has been slowed by congressional questions about its mission and possible privacy concerns. As a result, the Defense Department failed to meet an Oct. 1 target launch date and has not held a confirmation hearing for the command's first director. Although officials stress that the cyber command, as it is known, is an effort to consolidate existing offensive and defensive capabilities under one roof and involves no new authorities or broadening of mission, its potential for powerful new offensive capabilities -- some as yet unimagined -- have raised questions on Capitol Hill about its role, according to national security experts familiar with the concerns. Key questions include: When do offensive activities in cyberspace become acts of war? How far can the Pentagon go to defend its own networks? And what kind of relationship will the command have to the National Security Agency?

Genachowski's Facebook Account Compromised

Facebook scam artists have closed out 2009 by snagging a prominent victim: Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. It's not clear how Mr. Genachowski's Facebook account was compromised; perhaps he or a family member clicked on a malicious link, allowing his account to be taken over.

Trying to Add Portability to Movie Files

At the Consumer Electronics Show, a big high-tech gathering that will begin Wednesday in Las Vegas, Hollywood studios and consumer electronics makers plan to lay out some steps they are taking to simplify the digital future — and perhaps stem the worrying decline in home entertainment sales. Hollywood and its high-tech partners are deeply concerned that their customers will rebel against some of the limitations taking shape as video moves away from physical discs. Consumers, the industry believes, could balk at buying digital movies and TV shows until they can bring their collections with them wherever they go — by and large the same freedom people have with DVDs. In the last year and a half, a broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios has been trying to address this problem through an organization called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, or DECE. Five of the six major Hollywood studios (Warner Brothers, NBC Universal, Sony, Paramount and Fox, but not Walt Disney) are involved, with Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Intel and Best Buy. The group is setting out to create a common digital standard that would let consumers buy or rent a digital video once and then play it on any device. It might sound technical, but it could be crucial to persuading consumers to buy all the splashy new Internet-connected gear that tech companies will demonstrate at C.E.S., like HDTVs and set-top boxes that can download TV shows and films. Under the proposed system, proof of digital purchases would be stored online in a so-called rights locker, and consumers would be permitted to play the movies they bought or rented on any DECE-compatible device.

Firms Selling Apps for Simple Phones

Most consumers still do not use smartphones. According to data from the Nielsen Company, roughly 82 percent of cellphones in use are limited-function phones, the kind that typically sell for less than $50 or are given away with a two-year service contract. The cellphone industry prefers to call them feature phones, to distinguish them from smartphones like the Pre or the Droid, but they could just as well be called "kinda smartphones." Although once easily identified by boxy designs and minuscule, poorly pixelated screens, many feature phones these days more closely resemble their smarter cousins because software improvements enable them to run more sophisticated mobile applications.