November 2011

We missed last week’s round-up so we could celebrate Veterans Day and we’ll be away next week for a long Thanksgiving Day break, so here’s what’s been going on in November.

National Test of the Emergency Alert System
On November 9 at 2pm (eastern), the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications Commission conducted the first national test of the Emergency Alert System. All television channels and radio stations in the United States were supposed to be interrupted by a brief test. But, like most tests, some passed and some failed.

Viewers and listeners in many states said they saw and heard the alerts at the scheduled time, but others said they did not. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancies, but that was one of the purposes of the test — to find out how well the system would work in an actual emergency. Many of the reported failures affected cable and satellite television subscribers, and some were quite puzzling. Some DirecTV subscribers said their TV sets played the Lady Gaga song “Paparazzi” when the test was under way. Some Time Warner Cable subscribers in New York said the test never appeared on screen. Some Comcast subscribers in northern Virginia said their TV sets were switched over to QVC before the alert was shown. Many other viewers and listeners reported that the alert arrived right on time at 2 p.m. Eastern. It halted digital video recorder playback in some households and surprised radio listeners in their cars.

The discrepancies led House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) to bring FEMA and FCC officials in for a review of the test on Nov 17. When he announced the briefing, Chairman Walden, a former broadcaster himself, said, "By many accounts, last week's test had major problems. In my home state of Oregon, most -- if not all -- stations didn't even receive the signal…. I look forward to hearing where the agencies can relay what worked, what didn't, and where we can go from here to fix it."

Cyberwarfare and Cybersecurity
This week, the Department of Defense laid out its most explicit cyberwarfare policy to date, stating that if directed by the president, it will launch “offensive cyber operations” in response to hostile acts. But the report is still silent on a number of important issues, such as rules of engagement outside designated battle zones — a sign of how challenging the policy debate is in the newest and most complex realm of warfare. The report reiterated that the United States will “exhaust all options prior to using force whenever we can” in response to a hostile act in cyberspace. And it reflects the tensions inherent in cyber policy. Taken with past budget documents, it suggests a need for automated, pre-approved responses to some hostile acts in cyberspace.

The 112th Congress has been grappling with cybersecurity issues since last year when many predicted enough common ground between Republican and Democrats to pass legislation. This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated plans to debate wide-ranging cybersecurity legislation during the first work period of 2012.

Universal Broadband
On November 9, the Department of Commerce’s Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report, “Exploring the Digital Nation,” that analyzes broadband Internet adoption in the United States.

Overall, approximately seven out of ten households in the United States subscribe to broadband service. The report finds a strong correlation between broadband adoption and socio-economic factors, such as income and education, but says these differences do not explain the entire broadband adoption gap that exists along racial, ethnic, and geographic lines. Even after accounting for socio-economic differences, certain minority and rural households still lag in broadband adoption.

Shane Greenstein dove into the numbers a bit in a piece for Digitopoly. For dial-up Internet users, the two biggest reasons for not using broadband are expense and availability. Both of those should get better over time, albeit slowly. There is still hope for more converts. For people who don’t currently use the Net at all, the first and third biggest reasons for non-use are “don’t need it, not interested” and “No computer/computer inadequate.” Why is that bad news? Simply stated, this is the population that will fuel most of the future growth. Yet, neither of those reasons for not adopting will go away easily. Both issues defy resolution, either through good marketing campaigns from private providers, or with any reasonable policy intervention. Finally, the second most common reason for non-adoption — too expensive — will eventually be overcome, but it too is likely to be slowly overcome, as already noted. In short, new adopters will be hard to come by.

On November 9, however, the FCC announced a major expansion of the Connect to Compete program to help improve broadband adoption. (See more here) Here’s some highlights:

• Participating National Cable & Telecommunications Association member cable companies will offer all eligible families two-years of $9.95 + tax broadband cable Internet, with a no installation/activation fee option and no modem rental fees (with an option to purchase a $10 modem).
• Redemtech, a technology refurbishment company, has committed to offer a refurbished $150 + tax powerful laptop, or desktop with LCD monitor, to all eligible school lunch families, shipped to the home.
• Microsoft, starting early next year, will work with its hardware partners to introduce a series of affordable, high-quality education computers, starting at $250, that include Windows and Office. Microsoft’s ongoing commitment to digital inclusion worldwide means they view access to broadband and a computer as a right for all, not a privilege for some.
• Morgan Stanley has committed to contributing its significant microfinance expertise to assist Connect to Compete in its development of a microcredit program to help families afford the upfront cost of a PC. This program will also aim to provide financial literacy training and help families build credit history through successful loan repayment. These microloans will be provided by community-based financial institutions.
• Altman Vilandrie & Company (AV&Co.), a strategy consulting firm, is contributing its industry expertise and analytic consulting capabilities to the Connect to Compete initiative. They will help integrate the generous public and private sponsor contributions into a sustainable program through the development of a business and operating plan.

Collecting Taxes on Internet Purchases
As we all gear up for Cyber Monday and other shopping holy days, Congress appears ready to grapple with the issue of Internet sales taxes. The Supreme Court said Congress had the power to do so in a 1992 decision. But the issue has languished partly because endorsing tax collection on the Internet — an unofficial tax-free haven for shoppers — has not been a popular political position. Both “brick and mortar” retailers and online outlets are hiring lobbyists for the fight.

On November 9, a bipartisan group of 10 senators introduced the Marketplace Fairness Act (S.1832). The bill allow states to collect sales taxes from Internet retailers if they adopt one of two sales tax simplification options outlined in the legislation. The bill is supported Amazon -- which has opposed legislation in Illinois, California and other states to collect online sales taxes because of the complexity created by a state-by-state approach. Sears Holdings and other traditional retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores also back the measure. However, eBay still opposes the legislation, according to a tally of supporters and opponents provided by a lobbyist for interests that favor it.

Privacy Push
Privacy was another issue some thought a divided Congress might be able to address this year. On Nov 9, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AR) pressed the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission to release their final reports on consumer privacy protections. Both agencies released draft reports last December that identified gaps in current privacy protections, but neither has issued its final report. “Consumers are confused and concerned about how their information is collected and distributed, and firms collecting information on people are not bound to any common set of practices and are making them up as they go along," the senators wrote. "Congress and the public could use the guidance of the expert agencies in the form of final reports to help make sense of current practices and how to best protect innovation without sacrificing people’s privacy." In their letter the senators note the draft reports both concluded that industry self-regulation had failed to provide adequate privacy protections for consumers, suggesting the need for legislation. "And both reports presented what the expert staff at your agencies considered would constitute a better framework for addressing privacy issues in commerce. We leaned heavily on those frameworks to construct S.799, the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights," the letter states.

On Nov 11, we saw reports that Facebook was close to reaching an agreement with the FTC over charges that it misled users about its use of their personal information, the latest sign of widening public concern over privacy in the digital age. A rumored settlement would require Facebook to obtain users' consent before making "material retroactive changes" to its privacy policies. We’ve seen no official announcement a week later, however. And that same week, Reps Edward Markey (D-MA) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) wrote to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg asking him to explain a February patent application they claim raises concerns about Facebook tracking users on other websites. The lawmakers quote experts that claim the patent application contemplates tracking users on websites aside from Facebook and sending them targeted advertisements based on the information gleaned from such tracking.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller made privacy a major issue at the nomination hearing for two Federal Trade Commission members including FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. Chairman Rockefeller encouraged the FTC to crackdown on Facebook for allegedly misleading users about its privacy policy. He said that any action the FTC takes against Facebook should require Facebook to obtain its users' consent before changing any policies and should set up a "rigorous enforcement regime." Chairman Rockefeller also indicated this week he will hold a hearing to look into reports that Facebook tracks its users on the Web after they log out. On the House side, Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Chairman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) wants Facebook to come before Congress to explain why Facebook members got swarmed by pornographic and violent images this week. Chairman Bono Mack directed her staff to bring in Facebook officials next week for a briefing to learn more about the wave of pornographic and violent images that spread through Facebook's automated content-sharing systems. Among the questions Bono Mack wants answered: How many people were impacted? What actually happened? How did it happen? Could the vulnerability be used to gather users' personal information? What is Facebook doing to prevent future intrusions?

On Nov 14, U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer Daniel Weitzner said Internet firms should come up with self-imposed privacy rules that would be enforced by the FTC. He suggested any privacy law should be “flexible” and “pro-innovation.” He described the White House’s approach as an “alternative regulatory model,” saying that any new online privacy law should be “flexible” and “pro-innovation.” Weitzner warned that the Internet needs growing room without too many strict rules. “The traditional rule-making process lacks flexibility and agility in the Internet environment,” Weitzner said. “We are much more interested in depending on responsible companies to take a consumer privacy bill of rights and implement them through in voluntarily developing enforceable standards of conduct.”

China’s Internet Censorship
One below-the-radar headline was word that China's top IT firms have pledged to step up the regulation of their services as government authorities have intensified calls to control the development of the nation's Internet. Authorities have said they want to promote the "healthy development" of the Internet in fighting such rumors. But experts have said Chinese officials are in fact worried that the nation's Twitter-like social networking sites are becoming platforms to criticize the government. Chinese companies are already required to abide by the country's strict censorship laws, which block content and websites deemed politically sensitive or anti-government. Foreign sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are currently blocked. During last week's meeting, China's top IT firms also agreed to crackdown on Internet rumors, online pornography and scams. The head of China's IT authority, the State Internet Information Office, said the companies must also take the lead in enhancing the credibility of online media companies while also strengthening their management. On November 17, witnesses told the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that China's strong control of Internet communication undermines human rights and has significant impact on its relationship with the United States.

SOPA
On November 16, the House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR 3261 and also known as SOPA). The bill allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions against foreign websites that steal and sell American innovations and products. The bill increases criminal penalties for individuals who traffic in counterfeit medicine and military goods, which put innocent civilians and American soldiers at risk. And it improves coordination between IP enforcement agencies in the US. But there’s warnings the bill would be the most sweeping overhaul of copyright law in at least a decade. Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley Internet giants jointly warned federal lawmakers against anti-piracy legislation they fear could place too much responsibility on firms like them. While the director of the U.S. Copyright Office says that unless Congress continues to take serious steps to combat online piracy the nation's copyright system cannot be sustained.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) says that free speech concerns about the bill are “false and misleading” and that law-abiding websites have nothing to fear. This bill, he staff points out, specifically targets websites that are dedicated to the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit material and products. It does not target the lawful activity of legitimate websites. Because this bill focuses on illegal activity, legitimate and lawful American businesses should have nothing to worry about. Chairman Smith said that he is planning to mark up the legislation before the end of the year.

There’s bi-partisan support for SOPA, but also strong opposition. Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) said that Congress needs to “find a better solution” than SOPA. Earlier this week, fellow-Californian Reps. Anna Eshoo (D), Doris Matsui (D), Mike Thompson (D), John Campbell (R), Zoe Lofgren (D), Mike Honda (D) and George Miller (D) all signed a letter to the House Judiciary Committee outlining their opposition. Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO), Ron Paul (R-TX), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Mike Doyle (D- PA), also signed the letter.

Lobbying on the issue is fierce. According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, the film, music and TV industries have spent more than $91 million on lobbying so far this year — an amount that puts them on pace to beat all of their previous spending records. Not to be outdone, Google and its tech cohorts — including eBay, Yahoo and Facebook — have been ramping up spending and are looking for a hired gun to lead their newly revamped coalition.

This week’s hearing wasn’t exactly balanced as noted by Rep Darrell Issa (R-CA) (and Stop Online Piracy Act: Broad bill needs scrutiny and Why the House is stacking the deck on Internet piracy). And we’ve seen many cautions about the bill: Stop the Great Firewall of America ; Remember the "borderless" Internet? It's officially dead here’s one of the more… um, calmer takes on what’s going on with the bill Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) has vowed to block passage of a similar bill, the PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) , that has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Net Neutrality Passes a Test, But Faces More
On November 10, the Senate voted to keep in place the Federal Communications Commission's controversial rules aimed at preserving open Internet access. (Actually, the Senate voted 52-46 along party lines not to bring the resolution to a floor vote.) Republicans had pushed to overturn the rules, arguing the FCC overstepped its authority and that regulation of the Internet will stifle its growth. Most Democrats, including President Barack Obama, argue that the regulations are needed to preserve an open Internet as the telecommunications industry becomes more consolidated. The White House had threatened to veto the motion to rescind the rules

Some say the new rules – which are schedule to go into effect Nov 20 -- won’t change things much. Other observers say they don’t mean much because what the FCC really needs to do is address the lack of competition in the broadband marketplace.

Public Knowledge’s Art Brodsky noted that the vote was more about partisanship and gamesmanship than about policy. That’s because the rules were the result of a deal cut between FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and AT&T to keep wireless access to the Internet largely out of any Open Internet scheme. While AT&T and Verizon, which is challenging the rules in court, probably wouldn’t object if the Senate voted to overturn the rules, they weren’t making an overt campaign of it in Congress as the vote neared. Those companies also are smart enough to know that whatever vote total occurred wouldn’t be enough to sustain a Presidential veto. In the end, the fight for an Open Internet, on Nov 10, came down to another misleading attack on Big Government, and overwhelming regulation done by unelected bureaucrats and all sorts of other rhetoric that bore only a faint resemblance to reality. What is undeniably real is that an Open Internet, a truly Open Internet, benefits everyone, from Google to the single-person blog.

The real question, then, is what happens next. Verizon and MetroPCS are pursuing lawsuits against the FCC, claiming the agency doesn't have the legal authority to issue network neutrality/open Internet rules. Meanwhile, on the other side of the question, the group Free Press has also sued the FCC because the rules don't apply to mobile services. The question could remain open for years. The idea behind net neutrality is to prevent ISPs from slowing down or speeding up traffic (or even blocking it) to favor one source or type of data over another. It comes down to this: data flows on the Internet must be regulated. The question is whether to put that control in the hands of government (which would protect the status quo) or in the hands of corporations (which could potentially decide which kinds of content people can easily access.) It increasingly looks like the ultimate decision will be made by the federal courts. Just one party, we learned, filed a petition for reconsideration of the rules, asking the FCC for clarification of the "special services" aspect of the order

This week, we’ve seen some interesting network neutrality-related research come out:

• Krishna Gummadi, the head of the Networked Systems Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, in Saarbrücken, Germany, says ISPs are selectively slowing broadband speeds to keep traffic flowing on its network, using a sorting technique called throttling.
• Internet Service Providers like AT&T and Verizon, have said they need to charge content providers for prioritization so they can invest in improving infrastructure: faster internet service for all, they say. But placing a price on prioritizing content creates an inherent disincentive to expand infrastructure. Internet service providers would profit from a congested Internet in which some content providers will be more than willing to pay an additional fee for faster delivery to users. Content providers like the New York Times and Google would have little choice but to fork it over to get their information to end users. But end users would be unlikely to see the promised upgrades in speed. Those are some of the results of research we conducted on the Internet market. Despite the fierce back-and-forth on net neutrality, there is a surprising lack of rigorous economic analysis on the topic. To change that, we built a game-theoretic economic model to address this question: Do ISPs have more incentive to expand their infrastructure capacity when network neutrality is abolished? Our analysis shows that if net neutrality were abolished, ISPs actually have less incentive to expand infrastructure.
• The Brattle Group says the FCC’s rules must clearly define what constitutes a violation, how broadband providers can comply, and what happens when a violation occurs. Stakeholders — including industry, regulatory, and public interest — must reach accord on three pivotal issues: 1) regulators must define what measurable performance standards and network management practices violate net neutrality; 2) enforcement and corrections must be clearly defined and proportional to the seriousness of the violation; and 3) recognizing the constantly and rapidly evolving nature of the Internet and its content, today's rules may not be applicable five years from now.

AT&T/T-Mobile
Earlier this month, AT&T re-estimated the close date for the deal as June 2012 instead of March 2012.

For many of us around the country, AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile has been simmering on the back burner of late. But in DC, apparently, there’s a constant barrage of advertising in support of the deal. In a letter to WUSA, Gannett's CBS affiliate, one of the Washington (DC) stations airing the ads, the Media Access Project charges the ads are deceptive and misleading, and therefore, the station has a public interest obligation to make sure the ad is accurate or pull it from the airwaves. Since MAP can't appeal to the Federal Trade Commission (AT&T isn't selling a product), it referred to the Federal Communications Commission's public interest programming rule from 1960 that states: "With respect to advertising material, the licensee has the additional responsibility to take all reasonable measures to eliminate any false, misleading or deceptive matter...." In a letter to WUSA general manager Alan Horlick, MAP argues that AT&T's jobs and investment claims are unsupported by the Economic Policy Institute study on which the claim relies, and that the math behind the $8 billion investment claim doesn't add up. At the very least, MAP wants WUSA to ask AT&T "to explain."

AT&T (and the Communications Workers of America) claim the acquisition of T-Mobile would create up to 96,000 jobs, and it has pledged not to eliminate thousands more — an argument it hopes will put political pressure on regulators still deciding the fate of the deal. Foes of the deal, including Sprint and public interest groups, say the deal will actually kill jobs — and they’re demanding that TV stations stop airing commercials in which AT&T says otherwise.

MAP’s move is just the latest AT&T must deal with. Harold Feld of Public Knowledge wrote earlier this month: “Any tactician knows that battles can be won or lost by defining the battlefield. Skirmishes like the fight over whether Sprint and C Spire (formerly Cell South) can go ahead with their private lawsuits against AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile help define the terrain for the bigger fights to come. By ruling on what constitutes a recognizable injury under the antitrust rules and making preliminary determinations about the nature of the market, the Order sets the boundaries of what arguments the Department of Justice can make and what it will need to do to prove its case. Where AT&T manages to have certain market definitions locked in and certain potential injuries excluded as not cognizable under antitrust in these early rounds, it gains an advantage. By contrast, where the court rejects AT&T’s efforts to limit the scope of the review by adopting different market definitions or recognizing certain injuries as addressed by the antitrust law, DoJ gains an advantage.

Feld gets at some of the hand-to-hand combat we’re seeing now. Sprint Nextel must provide AT&T with updated internal documents relevant to AT&T’s defense against the DoJ suit. AT&T complained that the Justice Department was too slow in telling who its witnesses would be (Oh, yeah, the government will have to name up to 18 potential witnesses on November 16, with additional witnesses named on December 5 and Jan 6. AT&T will name up to 18 witnesses on November 23, with additional witnesses named on December 12 and January 6. Each side will be allowed about 35 witnesses. The trial begins February 13.) AT&T denied all claims in antitrust lawsuits by Sprint Nextel and Cellular South. The DoJ asks the court to allow prosecutors to discuss with outside lawyers and consultants documents AT&T gave the FCC. These all seem like inside baseball now, but these moves will define the battlefield.

FCC Reform Bills
Two weeks ago, we highlighted efforts in the House and the FCC to reform the agency’s processes for making decisions. On November 7, FCC Chairman Genachowski highlighted the reforms the FCC has already made – and looked forward to additional reform coming. The FCC has eliminated 190 obsolete regulations and identified twenty-five data collections that may be eliminated. The FCC has reformed and updated many rules. It has reduced backlogs, including an 89% reduction in satellite licensing applications and a 30% reduction in broadcast licensing applications. The FCC has significantly reduced the time between the vote on an FCC decision such as a rulemaking order and the release of the full text of the decision. It used to take on average 14 calendar days after a vote for the FCC to release the full text of its decisions, and major orders could take weeks or months to be released as language was finalized and documents were processed. Now our average is down to just 3 days, with a majority of decisions released within one day of the vote. The FCC also overhauled its website. It’s the first website that makes government data available in formats that can help entrepreneurs build innovative applications, including making all application programming interfaces or “APIs” available for developers.

The FCC plans to review experimental radio licensing policies. The FCC is examining rule changes that might remove impediments to the development of dynamic spectrum access technology, which will allow for more efficient spectrum use. The FCC is moving forward with a proceeding designed to protect consumers from fraudulent charges on their telephone bills – what’s commonly called cramming. The FCC will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the Commission’s technical standards for cable television service in response to changes in cable television systems technology.

House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) recognized the FCC’s progress, but said it still had a long way to go AND that Congress must enshrine the reform in legislation. They see legislation as a way to apply President Barack Obama's regulatory reform principles to independent agencies -- in this case the FCC -- not bound by his Executive Order on regulatory review. http://benton.org/node/105313 The goal, Walden and Rep Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) wrote in The Hill, is a 21st century FCC.

On November 16, Walden’s subcommittee approved the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 3309) by a vote of 14 to 9, and the Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act of 2011 (H.R. 3310) by voice vote. The panel rejected an amendment from Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), the subcommittee's ranking member, that would have expanded the authority of the FCC to review corporate mergers.

No, no, no… Thank You
Headlines is taking an extended holiday break. We will return Monday, November 28. Normally, DC would be quiet around Thanksgiving, but we’re likely to hear lots about the debt reduction supercommittee. Scheduled events return the week of the 28th, including a FCC meeting focused on broadband adoption and spectrum for medical devices.

And, as we gather around the turkey, we’ll be giving thanks for all our readers. Happy Thanksgiving.

Headlines is taking a long break for Thanksgiving – we will return MONDAY, November 28. See ya in Breckenridge.

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2011

A busy Friday headlined by Rainbow PUSH Coalition Media and Telecommunications Symposium and a hearing on online gambling http://benton.org/calendar/2011-11-18/

NETWORK NEUTRALITY
   Network Neutrality Should Be Enshrined in EU Law Says Parliament
   Network neutrality: Implementation measured in the details - op-ed

CONTENT
   Lawmaker opposition to SOPA grows
   Which tech companies back SOPA? Microsoft, Apple, and 27 others
   House Judiciary To Mark Up Online Piracy Bill By Year's End
   Why the House is stacking the deck on Internet piracy - analysis
   Would Google block payments to the New York Times? - analysis
   The Truth About Internet Radio - op-ed
   11% Of Magazine Exposures Are Digital-Only, Survey Shows [links to web]
   Bloggers Remember Rooney - research [links to web]
   Crushing the Cost of Predicting the Future [links to web]
   Why One Click Has Turned Google’s News Strategy On Its Head

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   AT&T Denies All Claims in Lawsuits by Sprint, Cellular South
   Department of Justice Asks Judge to Allow Sharing of Documents AT&T Gave FCC
   Music industry groups slam broadcasters in supercommittee letter
   Motorola Mobility Stockholders Approve Merger with Google [links to web]
   Amazon KindlePhone for 2012? [links to web]
   DHS Pushes D Block Legislation At House Hearing

TELEVISION
   New Paper Takes the Air Out of Broadcasters’ Localism Claims
   Los Angeles Dodgers Sue Fox in Bankruptcy Court Over Regional TV Contract [links to web]

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA
   Political Ads To Hit $3.2 Billion, Most In Local TV Buys
   A Strange Way to Pick Presidential Candidates - op-ed
   Open Up the Debates [links to web]
   Pandora Tells Candidates It Can Help Locate Voters [links to web]

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   Providing Internet Access to the Poor
   NARUC Adopts Communications Resolutions at “Communicating Reality” - press release
   Canadian regulators ditch usage-based billing for independent ISPs

PRIVACY
   'Nymwars' debate over online identity explodes

CYBERSECURITY
   Chairman Leahy adds cybercrime measure to defense bill
   FCC Launches Small Biz Cyber Planner
   US Military Goes Online to Rebut Extremists’ Messages
   A new line of defense in cybersecurity, with help from the SEC - op-ed

HEALTH
   National electronic health records network gets closer
   Booz Allen Lists Top Nine Ways Information Technology is Transforming Health Care - press release [links to web]
   Fighting cancer at 100 Gigabits per second [links to web]

ACCESSIBILITY
   Reps. Ask FCC to Make Web Site Info More Accessible ASAP

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
   Exceptional Court Coverage - editorial

POLICYMAKERS
   New Staff at FCC - press release
   Self-Regulatory Group Taps FTC Official For Executive Director [links to web]

STORIES FROM ABROAD
   Businesses say Chinese Internet control undermines trade
   Network Neutrality Should Be Enshrined in EU Law Says Parliament
   A Silicon Valley Dream Grows in Guatemala, Despite the Risks [links to web]

MORE ONLINE
   National Competition Selects 12 Libraries and Museums to Build Innovative Learning Labs for Teens [links to web]

back to top

NETWORK NEUTRALITY

PARLIMENT WANTS NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Jennifer Baker]
Network neutrality should be enshrined in European Union law, says the European Parliament. The Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to do more to guarantee an open Internet and net neutrality. Parliamentarians want to see E.U. telecom rules properly and consistently enforced and want internet traffic management practices to be monitored closely in order to "preserve the open and neutral character of Internet."
benton.org/node/105726 | IDG News Service
Recommend this Headline
back to top

NET NEUTRALITY MEASUREMENTS
[SOURCE: NetworkWorld, AUTHOR: Coleman Bazelon, Stuart Brotman]
[Commentary] To protect Internet service providers from uncertainty and clarify Internet users' rights, network neutrality/open Internet rules must clearly define what constitutes a violation, how broadband providers can comply, and what happens when a violation occurs. Stakeholders — including industry, regulatory, and public interest — must reach accord on three pivotal issues.
First, regulators must define what measurable performance standards and network management practices violate net neutrality. Justice Stewart's famous test for obscenity — "I know it when I see it" — will not suffice here. Because they may perceive the same behavior as either harmful or innovative, opposing interests are unlikely to agree ex post on what constitutes a violation. Ideally, efficient measurement mechanisms will inform consumers, allow regulators to monitor with minimal intrusion, and be easily and objectively reported by third parties or broadband providers. Such regulations will require two types of measurable information: (1) disclosure of network management policies, performance characteristics, and service terms; and (2) a set of network performance measures. On both counts, the fundamental questions are: Who will do the measuring? Where will the information be reported? And how will the information be used? The answers will depend on the type of data being measured.
Second, enforcement and corrections must be clearly defined and proportional to the seriousness of the violation. Broad regulation of a wide set of behaviors that might result in consumer harm would only stifle innovation without remedying an underlying market failure or addressing consumer harm. Instead, regulations must define both the violations and the appropriate, measured response to discourage negative outcomes, while protecting broadband providers who inadvertently violate a rule. Once a violation is identified, the remedy must also be proportionate to the violation in order to correct the perceived harm.
Third, recognizing the constantly and rapidly evolving nature of the Internet and its content, today's rules may not be applicable five years from now. Therefore, regulators should limit this first phase of net neutrality regulation to an initial review period — two to five years — to assess the evidence of existing harm and potential for harm in the future. If violations, complaints, or new concerns emerge, further oversight and enforcement, or other rule changes, may be warranted. The dynamic nature of the Internet, in short, limits the likelihood that any static set of rules will be appropriate over the longer term, absent the opportunity for periodic review and modification.
benton.org/node/105711 | NetworkWorld
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CONTENT

OPPOSITION TO SOPA
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Hayley Tsukayama]
While the Stop Online Piracy Act has a lot of bipartisan support, it’s also garnered quite a bit of lawmaker opposition — particularly from California politicians, who are joining Silicon Valley opposition to the bill. Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) said on Twitter that Congress needs to “find a better solution” than SOPA, adding the hashtag “#DontBreakTheInternet.” Earlier this week, fellow-Californian Reps. Anna Eshoo (D), Doris Matsui (D), Mike Thompson (D), John Campbell (R), Zoe Lofgren (D), Mike Honda (D) and George Miller (D) all signed a letter to the House Judiciary Committee outlining their opposition. Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO), Ron Paul (R-TX), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Mike Doyle (D- PA), also signed the letter.
benton.org/node/105725 | Washington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SOME TECH COMPANIES BACK SOPA
[SOURCE: The Next Web, AUTHOR: Alex Wilhelm]
“No comment” is Microsoft’s official position on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). But Microsoft did support the pre-SOPA Protect IP Act, something that SOPA did draw on heavily for its roots. To quote the official page on the House website: “The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) builds on the Pro IP Act of 2008 and the Senate’s Protect IP Act introduced earlier this year.” So we have Microsoft supporting the intellectual ancestor of SOPA, but that’s certainly not enough to say that the company supports SOPA outright. Microsoft is a major player in the Business Software Alliance, along with Apple and 27 other companies. And the BSA supports SOPA.
benton.org/node/105728 | Next Web, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SOPA MARKUP
[SOURCE: National Journal, AUTHOR: Juliana Gruenwald]
House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) said that he is planning to mark up controversial legislation before the end of the year that would crack down on piracy and counterfeiting on foreign websites. During a hearing on Smith's Stop Online Piracy Act, Chairman Smith and other supporters of the legislation urged opponents of the bill to offer up concrete changes in writing instead of offering vague criticisms. A Google official testifying on behalf of coalition of tech firms including Facebook, eBay and Yahoo, said the bill as drafted is too broad and could snarl legitimate websites and stifle innovation and free speech. Chairman Smith wasn't overly optimistic that the committee would be getting much concrete input on changes that would address opponents' concerns. "They have too much self-interest," he said.
benton.org/node/105732 | National Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WHY WAS THE HEAING STACKED?
[SOURCE: Fortune, AUTHOR: ]
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a proposed bill to combat online piracy. Five proponents were invited to testify, compared to just one opponent. The decision to invite just one dissenter -- Google -- to testify seemed designed not only to present a lopsided picture of the bill, but also to provide sponsor House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and his allies with a punching bag. Both committee members and witnesses, such as the Motion Picture Association of America's Michael O'Leary, basically accused Google of working in league with content pirates. In his opening statement, Chairman Smith accused Google of trying to "obstruct the Committee's consideration of bipartisan legislation." Did he mean, by opposing it? O'Leary said that Google searches of movies often put pirate sites above legitimate sites in the search ranking. Amid all the talk of Google seeking to "profit" from piracy, the implication was that Google purposefully engineers the rankings to favor the former. O'Leary offered no evidence of this. The battle here -- basically producers of movies and music versus technology and Internet companies -- is a longstanding one. To get an idea of why so many legislators have taken sides with the former group, one might simply compare how much each side spends on lobbying Congress.
benton.org/node/105724 | Fortune
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WOULD GOOGLE BLOCK NYTIMES?
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Mathew Ingram]
In a congressional hearing about a proposed anti-piracy bill, one of the few technology companies to testify was Google, which sent its copyright policy counsel to address the committee. In her comments, Katherine Oyama said the payment blockade against WikiLeaks — in which PayPal, Visa, MasterCard and others refused to process donations to the organization, causing it to effectively shut down — was a model for how new laws could treat copyright infringers. Is Google really saying payment companies (of which the web giant is one, via Google Wallet and Google Checkout) should decide whose websites should be shut down? And why is it promoting the idea of blocking payments to a media entity that has never been charged with a crime?
benton.org/node/105702 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

TRUTH ABOUT INTERNET RADIO
[SOURCE: MediaPost, AUTHOR: Mike Carson]
With the public offering of Pandora and the recent U.S. launch of European music darling Spotify, as well as the emergence of other startups in the "streaming music" market, a great deal of media attention is focused on the online radio space. All of these music services are readily clumped together as "Internet radio." Streaming radio, is also sometimes called “Internet radio,” and they are essentially interchangeable. They involve delivering music (and/or other audio content) to a device via the Internet as a live stream. Internet radio is the opposite of a download. However, there are different types of services in the Internet radio basket, and many who speak or write about them end up comparing apples and oranges. Within the scope of Internet Radio there are two categories of service, "non-interactive" and "on demand." With a non-interactive music service that is Digital Millennium Copyright Act-compliant, the listener cannot dictate exactly which songs to play or in what order. You can choose the type of music to listen to, but not a specific song. As the name implies, "on demand" services allow listeners access to a library of songs in which they can play any song, in any order they choose. Non-interactive services also offer "terrestrial simulcast” streams and "pure-play Internet only" streams. Terrestrial simulcast refers to the Internet streaming of actual broadcast radio stations. [Carson is CMO of Myxer, an ad-supported provider of free entertainment content on the Web.]
benton.org/node/105701 | MediaPost
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOOGLE NEWS
[SOURCE: NewsReach, AUTHOR: Nathaniel Bertram]
[Commentary] It’s the little things that catch your eye sometimes. To your average reader the almost microscopic adjustment to Google’s interface would barely register. It is literally a matter of an extra click. Where once you could move straight from the web search into a news search simply by selecting the different search function in the top bar, you now need to open the news channel and retype your search term. Well, you might argue, what is the harm in adding the extra three seconds it takes the average user to retype “Lady GaGa” and hit enter? My response would be: seconds matter. For a company that heralded the arrival of instant search with the news that they could shave two to five seconds of every search by bridging the gap between reading speed (30 milliseconds between glances at different areas of a page) and typing speed (300 milliseconds between keystrokes), this is a step backwards. Or at least a step forwards at a fractionally slower pace than usual.
benton.org/node/105730 | NewsReach
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

AT&T DENIES CLAIMS
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Tom Schoenberg]
AT&T denied all claims in antitrust lawsuits by Sprint Nextel and Cellular South over its proposed purchase of T-Mobile USA. AT&T, in separate filings in federal court in Washington, rejected Sprint and Cellular South’s allegations that the $39 billion transaction would harm the companies’ ability to compete in the wireless mobile phone market. “The expansion of capacity and other overwhelming efficiencies that will result from this transaction will benefit consumers, such that the transaction is in the public interest,” AT&T said.
benton.org/node/105710 | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top

DOJ ASKS TO SHARE AT&T DOCS
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Sara Forden]
The Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle to allow prosecutors to discuss with outside lawyers and consultants documents AT&T gave the Federal Communications Commission to support its proposed purchase of T-Mobile USA. The Justice Department said in a court filing that the ability to discuss material would let it better respond to AT&T’s claims about the benefits of the proposed $39 billion deal during a trial of the government’s antitrust case. “The FCC already permits outside lawyers and consultants to review defendant’s FCC filings,” the Justice Department argued. Being able to discuss the material with some of those lawyers “would not increase the pool of those who have the ability to access defendant’s models.” The Justice Department subpoenaed the same documents in its preparation for the trial, which is scheduled to start Feb. 13. The request places “no additional burden” on AT&T, the government said in the filing.
benton.org/node/105709 | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top

MUSIC ORGS WEIGH IN ON SPECTRUM AUCTIONS
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
In a letter to the deficit-reduction committee, four music industry groups took a shot at the National Association of Broadcasters for resisting incentive spectrum auctions. Broadcasters and the music industry have a long-running feud over whether artists should receive royalties when radio stations play their songs. In the letter, the heads of the American Federation of Musicians, the Recording Academy, SoundExchange and the Music Managers Forum wrote that they “strongly support” empowering the Federal Communications Commission to hold incentive auctions of spectrum currently used by television broadcasters. The auctions would raise billions of dollars in revenue for deficit reduction and free up spectrum for wireless broadband devices. The program would be voluntary, and the government would split some of the revenue with the participating stations.
benton.org/node/105722 | Hill, The | B&C
Recommend this Headline
back to top

DHS PUSHES FOR D BLOCK SPECTRUM
[SOURCE: National Journal, AUTHOR: Sara Jerome]
The Department of Homeland Security had a message for House lawmakers: Give airwaves to public safety. A DHS official testifying at a House hearing lobbied for the administration's stance on a public safety network for emergency responders, which has yet to win congressional approval. "The administration is fully committed to working with Congress to ensure the passage of legislation that meets the critical national need of establishing a public safety broadband network," Chris Essid, director of the emergency communications office at DHS, told a House Homeland Security subpanel. The push from DHS comes as spectrum legislation remains held up over this dispute. Legislation could still potentially move through the commerce committees or through the super committee if lawmakers manage to break through the D Block divide. That could be tough. Congressional Research Service telecom specialist Linda Moore, testifying at the hearing, pointed out the network dispute is rooted in disagreements on the role of government. "Bills that have been introduced in the 112th Congress show a great deal of cohesion about the need for a nationwide network and what type of support it should provide to public safety agencies, but little agreement about the roles that different federal agencies would play in the deployment and operation of the network," she said in written remarks.
benton.org/node/105733 | National Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

TELEVISION

RETRANSMISSION AND LOCALISM
[SOURCE: American Television Alliance, AUTHOR: Press release]
“Retransmission consent provisions are not accomplishing their original goal of enhancing broadcasters’ commitment to localism,” states Fordham Business School Professor Philip M. Napoli. In a paper released today, Napoli identifies this significant disconnect and urges the FCC to consider this “disappointing state of affairs” in its retransmission consent rulemaking. The paper, titled “Retransmission Consent and Broadcaster Commitment to Localism,” was commissioned by the American Television Alliance.
In reviewing the original intent of Congress, Napoli notes that the retransmission consent provisions of the 1992 Cable Act, such as “must carry,” were designed by Congress to provide revenue that enhanced “local stations’ ability to provide local news and information to viewers.” While retransmission consent payments have skyrocketed from $214 million in 2006 to a projected $1.3 billion this year, the paper shows that “national broadcast networks are seeking an increasing amount of this revenue stream” and local stations’ commitment to local programming has shown no meaningful improvement and has, by some measures, declined. Napoli provides numerous examples of declines in local news, looking at the number of minutes broadcast stations devote to local public affairs and local news programming, the actual content of the local news, and resources invested in local news production. He cites an FCC study finding that most stations provide on average, fewer than 1.5 hours of local public affairs programming per week (under 1% of total available broadcast hours).
The Napoli paper also covers the “increased frequency of actual or threatened broadcast stations blackouts,” which “have the potential to be incredibly damaging to local communities.” He cites the recent blackout in Mobile area as Tropical Storm Lee approached the Gulf Coast. He writes that “the tactics employed in these negotiations can take turns that literally threaten the physical well-being of citizens living in these affected communities during a time of crisis.” The paper closes by noting that there is “little compelling evidence that retransmission consent revenues are being utilized by broadcasters to enhance their provision of local news and public affairs programming. Rather, it appears that these revenues are being used in large part to fund the programming activities of national broadcast networks.” As the FCC considers revisions to the retransmission consent rules, Napoli urges the Commission to “keep in mind the localism objectives underlying these rules, as well as to keep in mind the increasingly disappointing state of affairs in terms of the extent broadcasters dedicate themselves to serving the informational needs and interests of their local communities.”
benton.org/node/105699 | American Television Alliance | read the paper
Recommend this Headline
back to top

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA

$3.2B IN POLITICAL ADS
[SOURCE: MediaPost, AUTHOR: Wayne Friedman]
Some $3.2 billion in political advertising is estimated to hit television networks, stations and other platforms for the 2012 -- with the weight of these commercials doing creating more than their usual upset: Price hikes in TV commercials. Media buying agency Harmelin Media expects TV commercial increases of between 7% and 15% in key election periods for non-political marketers -- especially for spot TV market in the 45 to 60 day window before a primary or general election. Within the general election window -- Sept. 7 through Nov. 6, 2012 -- it says rates are estimated to rise on average by 10%, due to political advertising. Early morning and early fringe dayparts -- those near news programming -- will have the strongest impact on rates: a projected 16% rise. It says early news, prime access and late news dayparts could see rates rise 9%. It also warns there will be heavily, then usual preemptions of existing schedules. (Political advertisers get the lowest unit rate and the ability to have the commercials inserted in place of non-political advertisers). Also there will be overall viewer fatigue from the onslaught of political ads affecting all TV advertising effectiveness during these periods. Harmelin says, by way of Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis, that the overall $3.2 billion in expected TV political advertising will represent a 52% increase in TV dollars versus the last presidential campaign season in 2008.
benton.org/node/105721 | MediaPost
Recommend this Headline
back to top

DEBATES AND PICKING CANDIDATES
[SOURCE: Roll Call, AUTHOR: Stuart Rothenberg]
[Commentary] Presidential debates, says NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd, are now part of the winnowing process. Instead of going to a small state and wooing caucus-goers, Republican presidential hopefuls are going on national cable to see if they can resonate with the voters. With 26 GOP debates currently scheduled between May 5, 2011, and March 19, 2012 (17 of them before the Iowa caucuses), the fight for the party’s nomination is now played out in living rooms and dens around the country as much as in diners, candidate coffees and small events in Iowa and New Hampshire. On television, this year’s debates have drawn more than the handful of political junkies and campaign professionals who once tuned in. They have become big events. The question is whether the steady stream of debates that we have already seen really helps us understand and compare the candidates — or whether a series of one-on-one, in-depth interviews with a thoughtful questioner, such as Charlie Rose or Jim Lehrer, might teach us more about the candidates than a dozen cattle calls. [Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg Political Report]
benton.org/node/105714 | Roll Call
Recommend this Headline
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

INTERNET ACCESS FOR THE POOR
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Brendan Greeley]
Last June, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, issued a challenge to the audience at a cable industry conference in Chicago. “You’ve connected two-thirds of Americans to broadband, and I applaud you for that,” he said, “Now, let’s work together to connect the last third.” Later that night Chairman Genachowski had dinner with cable executives and, according to the FCC, asked them for help. They obliged. On Nov. 9, the FCC announced “Connect to Compete,” a program designed to bring lower-income Americans online. In 2010, 31 percent of Americans lived in areas where broadband was available but chose not to pay for it. Of these, slightly more than a third cited cost of service and devices as the main reason. Now households with at least one child in the federal free school lunch program can buy broadband Internet access for $10 a month and relatively new, fast, refurbished computers for $150. (To qualify for free lunches, a family of four must have income below $29,055.) The commission estimates the program could reach between 15 million and 25 million Americans—and won’t cost taxpayers anything.
“We talked to every service provider under the sun,” says Josh Gottheimer, Genachowski’s senior counselor. “The cable industry decided to step up.” Given the reflexive intransigence the FCC often encounters with the companies it regulates, this was no mean feat. Fourteen cable providers, including Comcast, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable, will provide Internet access at well below market rates. There is a catch: That access is also well below market speeds. Typical introductory packages begin at 15 megabytes per second. The FCC has been reluctant to pin itself down to a definition of “broadband,” but in documents generally puts it at 4 mbps. For the discounted $10 rate, the cable companies offer 1 mbps, too slow for reliable video streaming or Internet telephone service, both of which compete with other cable industry products. “It’s not good for downloading movies, I give you that,” says Gottheimer, “but that’s not the ultimate goal of this program.” The FCC says it hopes people will use the Internet access to apply for jobs, do schoolwork, and use government Web sites. The speed is “not ideal,” he says but the program is “certainly a very important step and it’s going to help a lot of people.” The contracts will also waive installation, activation, and modem rental fees, which have been a significant barrier to entry for lower-income groups. The cable companies have committed to the offer through 2014.
benton.org/node/105735 | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top

NARUC COMMUNICATIONS RESOLUTIONS
[SOURCE: National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, AUTHOR: ]
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ Committee on Telecommunications sponsored two resolutions at NARUC’s meeting:
Resolution on Accountability for FCC Imposed Merger Public Interest Commitments to Deploy Broadband Infrastructure and Adoption Programs: NARUC requests that the Federal Communications Commission undertake a public inquiry to assess the extent to which public interest broadband deployment and adoption obligations imposed on previously approved merger applicants are being met – and for the FCC consider on a case-by-case basis whether to approve the use of federal financial support from the Connect America Fund or the Mobility Fund for expenses related to supplementing an applicant’s public interest obligations in the FCC order approving such applicants’ merger to deploy broadband infrastructure and/or to implement broadband adoption and usage programs.
Resolution Urging the Federal Communications Commission to Protect All Voice Service Consumers from Cramming Billing Practices: NARUC urges the FCC to implement mandatory cramming rules to all voice service providers that assess telephone bills on consumers, including traditional wireline service providers, interconnected Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, and wireless service providers
benton.org/node/105718 | National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Recommend this Headline
back to top

PRIVACY

NYMWARS DEBATE
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Mike Swift]
Who has the right to decide how you're known on the Internet -- you, or the online service you're using? That simmering question, which erupted with the launch of the new Google+ social network this summer, rolled into a boil this week with two high-profile developments. First, Facebook decided to enforce its "real names only" policy against internationally known author Salman Rushdie, changing his page -- without his consent -- to the name on his passport, Ahmed. Next, the Justice Department told Congress that it needs the ability to prosecute people who provide false information to websites with the intent to harm others, stirring fears across cyberspace that people might be busted for lying about their weight and age on Match DOT com. The two unrelated events brought into full public view the "nymwars," the online debate known by its Twitter hashtag. The debate focuses on the notion that people online should have the freedom to choose how they want to identify themselves. Identity rights experts say the government is asking for too much power. The nymwars debate is even more important, they say, because Facebook, Google and Twitter are trying to become people's identity passports to the Internet, allowing people to use credentials from those services to sign on to hundreds of thousands of other sites and services. Twitter does allow people to use a pseudonym.
benton.org/node/105737 | San Jose Mercury News
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CYBERSECURITY

CYBERCRIME ADDED TO DEFENSE BILL
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Gautham Nagesh]
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) filed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act on that would increase the penalties for cybercrimes and make it a felony to damage a computer that controls systems critical to national security. The amendment clarifies that only serious misconduct such as hacking should be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as opposed to relatively innocuous actions such as lying in an online profile or violating a site’s terms-of-use agreement. It would increase the criminal penalties for computer hacking and conspiracy to commit hacking. The amendment also includes several changes proposed earlier this year by the Obama Administration, including streamlining the criminal penalties for computer fraud and creating a new offense for damaging systems that control critical infrastructure such as transportation or public health networks.
benton.org/node/105723 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SMALL BIZ CYBER PLANNER
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Press release]
The Federal Communications Commission released the Small Biz Cyber Planner, a new easy-to-use online tool to help small businesses customize their own cybersecurity plans. The Small Biz Cyber Planner online resource will enable any small business to create a customized guide tailored to its cybersecurity needs by answering a few basic questions. By using this tool and implementing the planning guide, businesses can protect themselves, their information, and their customers from cyber threats. The new online tool was developed as part of a collaboration with government experts and private IT and security companies, including DHS, NCSA, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Chertoff Group, Symantec, Sophos, Visa, Microsoft, HP, McAfee, The Identity Theft Council, ADP and others.
benton.org/node/105705 | Federal Communications Commission | visit the planner | Chairman Genachowski | see earlier FCC press release
Recommend this Headline
back to top

DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT TEAM
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Thom Shanker, Eric Schmitt]
The government’s expanding efforts in computer-network warfare, offense and defense are among the most secret enterprises carried out by the military and intelligence community. To counter the adversary’s use of the Internet, American cyberwarriors have hacked into extremist chat rooms to sow confusion, or to inject poisonous code to take down militant Web sites. Sometimes, they choose not to act, but silently track the online movements of jihadists to learn their plans. In contrast, the Digital Engagement Team operates in total sunshine: all of the online postings carry an official stamp acknowledging sponsorship by Central Command. The team includes 20 native speakers of Arabic, Dari, Persian, Pashto, Urdu and Russian, the latter a shared language across the Muslim countries of the former Soviet states of Central Asia. Given that Central Command is responsible for military actions in an arc of instability stretching from the Indian Ocean across the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, people here call their headquarters “Tampa-stan.”
benton.org/node/105741 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SEC AND CYBERSECURITY
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Michael Chertoff]
[Commentary] We have been in enough classified briefings over the years to know the details of the most significant threats to our national security and our way of life. One vulnerability in particular keeps us up at night: the state of our nation’s cybersecurity. The directors of national intelligence under President George W. Bush and President Obama have called cyberattack the greatest long-term threat to our nation. Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has put it even more starkly, saying that cyberattacks pose one of only two existential threats to the United States. On Oct. 13, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued groundbreaking guidance to clarify companies’ disclosure obligations about material cybersecurity risks and events. Federal securities law has long required publicly traded companies to report “material” risks and events — that is, information that the average investor would want to know before making an investment decision. But before the SEC’s action, many companies were not aware how — or perhaps even if — this duty applied to cybersecurity information. In fact, a Senate Commerce Committee review of past corporate disclosures suggested that a significant number of companies have not reported these risks for years. Make no mistake: Our country is under cyberattack, and our national security and economic future are at severe risk. We believe that the SEC’s guidance — and the market-driven changes it will create in the way that the private sector considers risks — is a critical step toward improving U.S. cybersecurity.
benton.org/node/105738 | Washington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top

HEALTH

NATIONAL ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS NETWORK
[SOURCE: CNNMoney, AUTHOR: David Goldman]
The ambitious goal of setting up a nationwide, interconnected, private and secure electronic health records system isn't yet a reality -- but we're getting closer.
The 2009 Recovery Act, better known as the stimulus bill, set aside more than $20 billion for incentives to health care providers that deploy and meaningfully use certified electronic health records systems in their offices or hospitals. The first incentives are set to go out in the form of $22,000 Medicaid payments to early adopters within the next six months. Since we're still in the early phases, it's hard to get clear numbers for adoption rates. Prior to the bill, just 17% of physicians' offices and 12% of hospitals had implemented some kind of electronic health records system. Now, according to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT), the agency tasked with organizing the electronic health records project, 75% of hospitals have responded to surveys saying they are planning on investing in health information exchange services.
benton.org/node/105727 | CNNMoney
Recommend this Headline
back to top

ACCESSIBILITY

FCC WEBSITE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), joined by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), both members of the House Communications Subcommittee (Rep Eshoo is ranking member), have asked the Federal Communications Commission not to wait for legislation before making changes to its Web site. The Subcommittee passed a FCC reform bill that included a Stearns amendment requiring the FCC to provide direct access on its Web page to its annual budget, performance and accountability reports, appropriations and the number of employees. In a letter to the FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski the day after that vote, the pair said that they understood that the FCC already had that info on the Web site, by that it was difficult to locate. The FCC's redesigned Web site has drawn criticisms for being difficult to navigate by users inside and outside the FCC.
benton.org/node/105734 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

C-SPAN AND THE SUPREME COURT
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] C-Span asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. this week to let the network televise the upcoming Supreme Court arguments in the case challenging the health care law. The justices have not permitted TV cameras in their courtroom, but this landmark case, which will affect every American, should surely be an exception to that rule. During a hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, Justice Antonin Scalia shared his view, as Politico summarized, that “the media could do a better job of presenting to the public information that is relevant to the cases and the decisions” of the court. One way he could help ensure that would be to support allowing the public to watch oral arguments. While the court provides transcripts of arguments on its Web site and posts audio recordings weekly, those are not equivalent to seeing justices ask questions and the lawyers respond live. For a case this important, the justices would serve the public and the court by allowing cameras at the arguments.
benton.org/node/105740 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

POLICYMAKERS

NEW STAFF AT FCC
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Press release]
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the appointment of Greg Guice as Director, Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA). Guice most recently served as Acting Director of OLA and as Special Counsel for House Affairs. Chairman Genachowski also announced the appointment of Christopher Lewis as Deputy Director of OLA. Lewis previously served as Acting Deputy Director and Legislative Analyst in the office.
Greg Guice has worked as an attorney for the Commission for the past 12 years, with experience in wireline, wireless and public safety issues. During his tenure with the FCC, Guice was detailed to serve for nearly two years as Counsel to then-Chairman Henry Waxman on the Energy and Commerce Committee, helping with the Committee’s work on universal service reform, competition policy, public safety and spectrum policy. Guice received his B.A. in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his J.D. from George Mason University.
Christopher Lewis will serve as Deputy Director of OLA. Prior to joining OLA, he handled legislative affairs for the FCC’s National Broadband Plan team. Lewis has also served as a Senior Advisor on the Commission’s Digital Television Transition policy team. Lewis graduated from Harvard University with a B.A. in Government.
benton.org/node/105713 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

CHINESE INTERNET CONTROL AND TRADE
[SOURCE: National Journal, AUTHOR: Josh Smith]
China's strong control of Internet communication undermines human rights and has significant impact on its relationship with the United States, witnesses told a joint congressional-executive commission. "Addressing Chinese censorship as a trade barrier is a legitimate, multilateral and potentially effective approach that needs to be pursued by our government at the highest levels," Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association said at the hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. As the country that led the way in developing the Internet, the United States must likewise lead the effort to hold the Chinese government accountable, Black said. Gilbert Kaplan, president of the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, said China imposes "debilitating" burdens on foreign Internet service providers, and the censorship of websites can "inhibit or prevent altogether" the ability of U.S. companies to do businesses. "China's blocking and filtering measures, and the fog of uncertainty surrounding what China's censors will and will not permit, violate numerous of China's international obligations," Kaplan said. "The negative impact of these violations on America's premier Internet companies is profound."
benton.org/node/105703 | National Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

USAGE-BASED BILLING IN CANADA
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Timothy Lee]
For the last year, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has been at the center of a raging debate over the future of Internet access pricing. After the CRTC approved a shift to usage-based wholesale rates for competitive Internet service providers, a furious backlash caused the Canadian government to pressure the CRTC to take another look at the policy. Canada has a line-sharing regime for broadband similar to the one the United States abandoned under President George Bush. Under this scheme, ISPs whose networks don't reach the "last mile" to a customer's home can lease connectivity from an incumbent at wholesale rates set by the government. In the past, the wholesale rates were on a per-connection basis, but the incumbents have been lobbying for a switch to usage-based billing, which they argue is needed to help pay for the costs of capacity expansion. In a Nov 15 ruling, the CRTC, which has powers similar to the Federal Communications Commission, tried to split the difference with a capacity-based usage model. Under this model, competitive ISPs must decide at the start of each month how much network capacity it wants at each point where it interfaces with the incumbent's network. If it overestimates its traffic needs, it will pay more than it needs to. If it underestimates, its customers will suffer from increased congestion.
benton.org/node/105704 | Ars Technica
Recommend this Headline
back to top