1. Monthly archive
  2. December 2011

December 2011

Americans Favor Televising Supreme Court Healthcare Case

Nearly three-quarters of Americans, 72%, think television cameras should be allowed into the U.S. Supreme Court when it hears oral arguments in its upcoming review of President Barack Obama's healthcare law. Americans show broad bipartisan agreement on the question, although support for introducing cameras into the high court is slightly higher among Republicans than Democrats, 77% vs. 70%. At 66%, moderates are slightly less in favor than either conservatives (78%) or liberals (75%).

Regulation of Transborder Data Flows under Data Protection and Privacy Law

Transborder data flows have become increasingly important in economic, political, and social terms over the 30 years since the adoption, in 1980, of the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data.

A fundamental change in the business and technological environment for data processing is also taking place, driven by developments such as the increased globalization of the world economy; the growing economic importance of data processing; the ubiquity of data transfers over the Internet; greater direct involvement of individuals in transborder data flows; the changing role of geography; and growing risks to the privacy of individuals. Despite these fundamental changes in the data processing landscape, and the growth in the regulation of transborder data flows in numerous countries, there has been little attempt so far to conduct a systematic inventory of such regulation at a global level; to examine the policies underlying it; and to consider whether those policies need to be re-evaluated. This study is designed to describe the present status of transborder data flow regulation, and to provoke reflection about its aims, operation, and effectiveness, now and in the future.

Measuring Digital Local Content

This paper discusses the ways to quantify the local content that can be delivered through the internet. Several indicators are proposed; for each indicator the paper discusses available data, presents strengths of a given measure and outlines its potential drawbacks.

Google, Microsoft teams work to keep pace with privacy laws

Executives from Microsoft and Google gave a glimpse into the size of their privacy organizations, which are required for the companies to try to avoid running afoul of complicated U.S. privacy regulations and prepare for changes coming to privacy laws around the globe.

Microsoft has 40 people fully dedicated to working on privacy issues and another 400 who might spend some time on privacy, said Michael Hintze, associate general counsel at Microsoft. Google has a team of about 60 engineers fully devoted to privacy, said Keith Enright, senior privacy counsel. They work across all of Google's products. At Google, the engineers work on developing products and then the legal team steps in to examine them, he said. In addition to its privacy engineers and legal pros, Google also now employs Anne Toth, formerly Yahoo's chief trust officer, who oversees privacy in Google+, Enright said. The size of the teams is an indication of what's required today to keep pace with data privacy issues, said Kate Spelman, an attorney with Cobalt LLP. "People used to believe you could dip into privacy issues now and again," she said. "We've decided that's not possible any more. There is no ability to dabble in privacy." Instead, companies are hiring lawyers who are dedicated to handling data privacy.

Is a Spectrum License Land Grab in the Offing?

Last week Verizon Wireless and the cable consortium known as SpectrumCo announced a $3.6b deal for AWS licenses covering 259m POPs; that deal implied a more than 50% increase in the value of the subject licenses since the 2006 FCC auction. This week, Verizon is back at the table, acquiring $360m worth of PCS and AWS licenses from Leap Wireless and Leap affiliate Savary Island. In exchange, Verizon is selling 12 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum covering nearly 11m POPs in Chicago to Leap, for $204m. Both deals indicate a healthy increase in spectrum values—which doesn’t come as a surprise given the growing popularity of mobile broadband services and the carriers’ race to deploy 4G LTE service. I also see AT&T’s March announcement that it would (attempt to) acquire T-Mobile as well as AT&T’s December 2010 deal for $1.2b in Qualcomm spectrum as catalysts that prompted Verizon to start shopping more seriously. It’s potentially the beginning of a real land grab for spectrum licenses; those who 'have' will benefit from the major projected increase in mobile broadband use, and those who ‘have not’ could well be left behind. Those who 'have and sell' might earn a nice return today, but that leaves open the question of how to participate in the coming hockey stick growth pattern. The good news is that it seems much of the long dormant AWS spectrum is going to emerge from its cocoon, providing options for ILEC license holders.

How AT&T fumbled its $39 billion bid to acquire T-Mobile

In a city overrun with lobbyists and corporate interests, AT&T is king of the heap — the bareknuckled brawler that spares no energy or expense to win any fight.

Since 1998, the company has given more money in campaign contributions than any other firm in corporate America. It’s also one of the top 10 corporate spenders on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And it gets results. In the past 15 years, AT&T has successfully acquired a dozen firms and regularly wins its regulatory battles on Capitol Hill and at the FCC. With that record, the company was confident it could push through the T-Mobile deal. AT&T relied on the political playbook that has worked for the company countless times. It hired seven former congressional lawmakers to help lobby for the deal. Besides pouring tens of millions into political advertising, the firm had the support of lawmakers whose campaigns it had funded and third-party groups it supports financially, from the NAACP to the Louisiana Ballooning Foundation. And in its estimated $40 million ad campaign and discussions with government officials, AT&T latched onto an argument it was sure would win over Washington — jobs — saying the merger would put thousands of Americans to work.

So how did one of Washington’s most feared lobbying operations wind up in a losing battle with regulators? The old playbook backfired, according to dozens of interviews with government officials, lobbyists and consumer groups.

Justice Dept. wants to put off AT&T-T-Mobile merger trial

The Justice Department said it wants to withdraw or postpone its antitrust case against AT&T’s proposed acquisition of smaller rival T-Mobile USA now that the two companies no longer have a valid application to approve the deal.

The companies took back their application with the Federal Communications Commission two weeks ago after the FCC's chairman came out against the $39 billion deal. The companies have said they will seek approval from a federal judge who has scheduled a February trial on the Justice Department's case, and will file another FCC application later. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joe Wayland told U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle that there's "not a real transaction" until the companies file again with the FCC, and the government plans to file a motion next week to put off the case. Judge Huvelle gave the government until Dec 13 to do so and scheduled a hearing for Dec 15 on the matter. Judge Huvelle told AT&T she was concerned the company was "using" the court and wasting its time. "I have some responsibility to the taxpayers … to make sure we aren't being used in a way we weren't intended," Judge Huvelle said.

AT&T attorney Mark Hansen responded that the company did not start the court battle. The Justice Department did when it sued on Aug. 31. Hansen said it didn't make sense to have both the FCC and the court trying to rule on the merger at the same time, so the companies decided to proceed first with the trial that's already been scheduled. "If we can't convince the court of this, we won't win," Hansen said. "We understand that."

If the Dept of Justice gets its wish, the deal could wind up in limbo, forcing AT&T to either go all the way or give up. AT&T lawyers maintained they weren’t “playing some strategic game,” but Huvelle’s sympathy seemed to lie with the government. If the February trial date is postponed, then AT&T and T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom will start bumping into their own self-imposed deadlines. Stifel Nicolaus telecom analyst Christopher King explained in a research note: “that could put more pressure on T-Mobile (i.e., Deutsche Telekom) to reconsider its options and possibly seek to call off the merger, though it would still have to renegotiate a $4 billion break-up fee and spectrum concession with AT&T to withdraw early. The current deal runs through March 20, 2012; either party can unilaterally extend the deal three months, and a second extension is possible through September 20, 2012, though it requires a company certification to be made about the material chance of completing the deal in time.”
Separately, AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said the blocking the deal will lead to higher prices for consumers.

Public Knowledge applauded the Justice Department's move. “AT&T is attempting to use the court system to force approval of the deal from the FCC and to avoid a break-up fee before the deal’s deadline next year," Harold Feld, Public Knowledge's legal director, said in a news release. "As Huvelle pointed out, any concerns about timing, however, are of AT&T’s own making." He urged AT&T to give up on the deal. “Rather than cost taxpayers and private companies millions of dollars in fees to pursue this fantasy, AT&T should abandon a transaction which will raise prices, hurt consumers and stifle innovation,” he said.

“A Reordering of the Competitive Universe as We Know It”

We're usually not so dramatic at Headlines, so we borrow our title this week from a quote from Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. It is how he described the biggest news of the month to his client. On December 2, SpectrumCo -- a joint venture between Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks -- entered into an agreement to sell to Verizon Wireless the cable companies’ 122 Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum licenses for $3.6 billion. Comcast owns 63.6% of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $2.3 billion from the sale. Time Warner Cable owns 31.2% of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $1.1 billion. Bright House Networks owns 5.3% of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $189 million. The companies also announced that they have entered into several agreements, providing for the sale of various products and services. Through these agreements, the cable companies, on the one hand, and Verizon Wireless, on the other, will become agents to sell one another's products and, over time, the cable companies will have the option of selling Verizon Wireless’ service on a wholesale basis. Additionally, the cable companies and Verizon Wireless have formed an innovation technology joint venture for the development of technology to better integrate wireline and wireless products and services. That would allow, for example, a consumer to walk into a Comcast store and get a Verizon Wireless plan tacked on to his television, Internet and landline phone service.

“A Reordering of the Competitive Universe as We Know It”

December 2 – 9: “A Reordering of the Competitive Universe as We Know It” We're usually not so dramatic at Headlines, so we borrow our title this week from a quote from Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. It is how he described the biggest news of the month to his client.

On December 2, SpectrumCo -- a joint venture between Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks -- entered into an agreement to sell to Verizon Wireless the cable companies’ 122 Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum licenses for $3.6 billion. Comcast owns 63.6% of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $2.3 billion from the sale. Time Warner Cable owns 31.2% of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $1.1 billion. Bright House Networks owns 5.3% of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $189 million.

Putting the deal in some perspective, perhaps, is a new paper by Darrell West of the Brookings Institution. He notes that the mobile economy is reshaping the global landscape. For the first time, people are able to reach the Internet in a relatively inexpensive and convenient manner. Regardless of geographic location, they can use mobile broadband for communications, education, health care, public safety, disaster preparedness, and economic development. Powerful mobile devices and sophisticated digital applications enable users to build businesses, access financial and health care records, conduct research, and complete transactions anywhere. He offers ten facts about mobile broadband:

  1. Smartphones Will Outnumber Personal Computers in 2012
  2. Mobile Broadband Is Growing Much Faster than Fixed Broadband
  3. More Than One-Third of Americans Own Smartphones and Use Them for a Wide Range of Services
  4. Mobile Technology Has Gone Global
  5. The Mobile Economy Is Creating Jobs and Driving Development in the United States and Around the World
  6. Mobile Applications Are Reshaping Education
  7. Mobile Helps Patients and Health Care Providers
  8. Mobile Alters the Way People Engage Politically
  9. Mobile Empowers Entrepreneurs and Overcomes Digital Disparities
  10. Mobile Is Vital to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

"Become Agents to Sell One Another's Products"

The companies also announced that they have entered into several agreements, providing for the sale of various products and services. Through these agreements, the cable companies, on the one hand, and Verizon Wireless, on the other, will become agents to sell one another's products and, over time, the cable companies will have the option of selling Verizon Wireless’ service on a wholesale basis. Additionally, the cable companies and Verizon Wireless have formed an innovation technology joint venture for the development of technology to better integrate wireline and wireless products and services. That would allow, for example, a consumer to walk into a Comcast store and get a Verizon Wireless plan tacked on to his television, Internet and landline phone service.

What the Deal Means for Cable

The deal means that cable companies are essentially killing plans to move into the cellular industry. Some insiders see this deal as an admission of failure by the cable industry even as it dominates growth in Internet services and wireline phones, previously controlled by traditional telephone companies. Miller Tabak & Co. analyst David C. Joyce said the sale is evidence that the "cable industry tacitly acknowledges that they cannot do wireless on their own." C|Net reported that Comcast and Time Warner would will slowly wind down their Clearwire business over the next six months, and plan to move their existing customers to other options.

"The biggest surprise is that it aligns the cable companies with Verizon, one of their fiercest competitors," said Mizuho analyst Michael Nelson. "The primary reason the cable companies formed this consortium and acquired this spectrum was to compete better with Verizon and AT&T."

What the Deal Means for Verizon Wireless

With this spectrum, Verizon can build what amounts to another LTE network parallel to its current 4G network at 700 MHZ. In areas where its current AWS holdings overlap with SpecrtumCo’s, Verizon will have a total of 60 MHz of spectrum, which would be enough to build mobile broadband networks with three times the capacity it has on LTE today. If it can get this deal by regulators, Verizon will seal its mobile broadband future for years to come.

The agreement comes at a time when consumer demand for wireless services and bandwidth is increasing rapidly. For Verizon, the deal is an important step toward ensuring that the needs and desires of its consumers for additional mobile services will not be thwarted by a spectrum shortage. While government action to free more spectrum is expected, this transaction ensures that the spectrum which is already available for mobile services is used to serve customers.

Verizon has an aggressive slate of 4G products in the works for next year -- including the vast majority of its smartphones. The carrier also plans to make more 4G devices affordable, further driving adoption. That'll be key to Verizon's effort to further extend its edge over the competition. The carrier was largely racing against itself when it came to 4G LTE this year, but 2012 will be different as rivals work quickly to roll out their own next-generation networks. Verizon, for its part, isn't so concerned. Verizon still holds an intimidating lead over its competition when it comes to 4G LTE deployment.

What Analysts Are Saying

“This is a strategic masterstroke for Verizon,” said Moffett. The agreement will lead to “a complete reordering of the competitive universe as we know it today.” It “amounts to a partnership between formerly mortal enemies, not just outside of Verizon’s FiOS territories, but even within them.” And the marketing agreements between Verizon and cable, he wrote, amount to “a partnership between formerly mortal enemies.” Moffett added that the purchase might be “the most significant deal the industry has ever seen. And that’s a pretty amazing thing to say for a deal where less than $4 billion changes hands.”

The partnership may make Verizon and cable operators more cooperative “frienemies,” said David Joyce, an analyst at Miller Tabak. “This might slow the competitive push from FiOS to drive down prices, which could help the cable companies,” said Joyce.

Where Federal Regulators Fit In

SpectrumCo’s sale and transfer of its advanced wireless spectrum to Verizon Wireless is subject to approval by the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Communications Commission will “undertake a thorough, fair and fact-based review of the proposed transaction,” according to FCC spokesman Neil Grace.

The deal is also subject review under the Hart-Scott Rodino Act and other customary conditions. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act established the federal premerger notification program, which provides the FTC and the Department of Justice with information about large mergers and acquisitions before they occur. The parties to certain proposed transactions must submit premerger notification to the FTC and DOJ. Premerger notification involves completing an HSR Form, also called a “Notification and Report Form for Certain Mergers and Acquisitions,” with information about each company’s business. The parties may not close their deal until the waiting period outlined in the HSR Act has passed, or the government has granted early termination of the waiting period.

Approval may require the sale of assets in certain markets, said Jeff Silva, senior policy director for telecommunications, media and technology at Medley Global Advisors LLC in Washington. “This deal is likely to eventually get approved with possible divestitures in any markets that the FCC and Justice Department find that Verizon would have excessive spectrum concentration,” he said. Experts point AT&T’s purchase of Qualcomm’s 700 MHz spectrum which the to the indicated it is willing to approve. There’s little chance the FCC would deny the same opportunity to Verizon.

The companies said that they do not think federal regulators can review their marketing agreement. They noted that AT&T has a similar cross-promotional deal with satellite company DirecTV. But antitrust experts said that either Justice or the FCC could expand its review and question how the marketing partnership would affect consumer choice.

“It’s fair to say this is going to get a hard and thorough review,” said the person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the review process is not publicly disclosed. “If not in the review, in an investigation.”

While consumers could eventually see their cable TV, Internet, home phone and cellphone services on a single monthly bill, some antitrust experts are worried about deal. They are especially concerned that Verizon — in its push to dominate wireless services and its new obligation to promote other cable companies — will lose interest in FiOS altogether. “A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” said a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Verizon said it remains committed to its FiOS service. “FiOS will continue to compete fiercely with cable, and we are committed to it for our customers,” said Verizon’s Peter Thonis. But, just days later, Verizon announced it plans to end its wireless LTE partnership with satellite provider DirectTV and will stop its buildout of FiOS television and Internet services in the next couple years. Moffett said the end of its partnership with DirectTV for a trial LTE service is “the first direct fall-out from Verizon’s ground-breaking deal” with cable companies. And even though McAdam insisted that Verizon will rigorously promote its FiOS video and Internet service in areas that compete with cable, the company said it doesn’t have plans to expand the expensive fiber network beyond what’s already been announced and scheduled for buildout over the next couple years.

Public Interest Concerns

Public Knowledge was one of the first groups to note the positive aspects of the deal. “On the one hand, it is good news that Verizon is paying $3.6 billion to buy useful spectrum from the cable company consortium. Spectrum is better held in the hands of those who will use it, as opposed to those who don't,” said PK Legal Director Harold Feld. "The transaction also shows how relatively cheaply more spectrum can be acquired by those who need it. The purchase price is about one-tenth of the amount AT&T wants to pay for T-Mobile to theoretically solve AT&T's spectrum shortage.”

But PK also raised some concerns. “At the same time,” Feld continued, “we have some questions and concerns about the transaction's side deal. Consumers have benefited from head-to-head competition between Comcast and Time Warner and Verizon FIOS. If this deal becomes a way for the companies to coordinate their product offerings to avoid competition, or a way to work together to exclude other competitors such as DISH from the mobile and wireless data market, that would obviously be a bad outcome. The Federal Communications Commission will need to review this transaction. Even with our general approval of spectrum being used, the Commission will also need to review the transaction against its 'spectrum screen,' which measures spectrum concentration rather than market share, to ensure that there is enough leftover spectrum in every market for vigorous competition.”

Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, said the deal deserves a hard look by Washington. “Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.” Broadcasting & Cable also noted Cooper’s objections. "The auctioning of spectrum has totally failed to promote competition in wireless," he said. Cooper said it was ironic that the announced deal came a day after House Republicans voted to foreclose the development of unlicensed spectrum that would give the public alternatives to paying Verizon -- or AT&T -- for cellular service. "With this purchase, almost 75 percent of the spectrum auctioned in the last decade has ended up in the hands of the top two wireless firms (AT&T and Verizon) and 90 percent with the top four firms," said Cooper. Given that spectrum is one of the barriers to entry for anyone planning a wireless network, and that getting the stuff approved for a mobile broadband network is daunting and expensive, it’s pretty clear U.S. policy hasn’t helped spread that wealth.

Stacey Higginbotham, writing for GigaOm, said the deal signals “the moment that the consumer benefits of the convergence of voice, video and data hit the wall.” Given that Verizon has both a broadband and a pay TV business, it had one of the best chances to push such a radical change in the pay TV business model. But now that it has some mysterious “agreements” with the cable guys, it’s unlikely that Verizon would try to infringe on their content businesses with its own over-the-top offering. That’s a bummer for consumers who might prefer a Verizon package over one from their local cable provider, but it’s also indicative of Verizon ceding the wireline market to cable companies.

Ex-Obama White House Aide Susan Crawford wrote, “This is the crystalline moment when the division of the marketplace becomes completely clear, even to people who haven’t been paying attention. Verizon and AT&T get wireless; cable gets wires; consumers are stuck. Wireless, like wired high-speed access already wholly dominated by the cable companies, is a natural monopoly service at this point, with incredibly high barriers to entry – so high that even current players, like T-Mobile, are having trouble making it. Clearwire has nowhere to go at this point. So we have the worst of all worlds: no competition, and no regulatory oversight.”

Wi-Fi, Higginbotham, writes, might be a potential competitive counterweight, but is “a pretty small hedge against the growing monopoly and duopoly in U.S. broadband... Maybe it was crazy to think consumers could get away with paying for a broadband connection for $45 a month, as opposed to paying around $170 for Internet, cable and voice. It might be technically possible, but the ISPs aren’t going to pass up on those profits unless competition forces them to. This latest deal may end up ensuring that competition continues to evade the U.S.” [For more on the role of unlicensed spectrum see Open Wireless vs. Licensed Spectrum: Evidence from Market Adoption]

The New Digital Divide

With all this type about wireless broadband, we don’t mean to short-change wired broadband, however. The USA Today this week offered an editorial noting that the “nation that invented the personal computer, television, the cellphone, the smart phone and — oh yes — the Internet, lags in creatively using all these things. In both land-line and mobile broadband, America is, at best, mediocre when measured on a variety of metrics such as penetration rates, Internet speeds and price.” And it puts the responsibility squarely on our telecommunications regulations:

In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high. If the U.S. were to take a similar tack, it would be a return to the way things once were. In the years of dial-up, phone and Internet service were two distinct things, with consumers getting multiple choices for the latter. A sweeping 1996 telecommunications law envisioned that state of affairs continuing after the move to broadband. But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be. Today, in much of the country, consumers have little choice but to get their land-line service from a cable TV company, if they can get it at all. Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon. All this poses a problem. Being less connected than other countries in an age of information and technology could put the U.S. economy at a competitive disadvantage.

On December 3, the New York Times published a lengthy op-ed by Susan Crawford. She notes, “Increasingly, we are a country in which only the urban and suburban well-off have truly high-speed Internet access, while the rest — the poor and the working class — either cannot afford access or use restricted wireless access as their only connection to the Internet. As our jobs, entertainment, politics and even health care move online, millions are at risk of being left behind.” Hatty Lee observes the two Internets, too, in a piece for ColorLines. Crawford concludes: “The new digital divide raises important questions about social equity in an information-driven world. But it is also a matter of protecting our economic future. Thirty years from now, African-Americans and Latinos, who are at the greatest risk of being left behind in the Internet revolution, will be more than half of our work force. If we want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to make sure every American has truly high-speed wired access to the Internet for a reasonable cost.”

 

 

The FCC has its December open meeting next week and there’s lots more we’ll have our eye on. We’ll see you in the Headlines. 

December 9, 2011 (Clinton Urges Countries Not to Stifle Online Voices)

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2011

Human Rights and Hacktivism on today’s agenda http://benton.org/calendar/2011-12-09/


GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
   Sec Clinton Urges Countries Not to Stifle Online Voices
   Bill Aims to Curb Tech Firms' Censorship Exports

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   In broadband race, USA is not No. 1 - editorial
   How Big Telecom Used Smartphones to Create a New Digital Divide - analysis
   Bringing High-Speed Internet to All - op-ed
   Americans Choose Wireless for Broadband - op-ed
   Administration Must Commit to True Universal Service - op-ed
   Verizon ends satellite deal, FiOS expansion as it partners with cable
   Powell: Distinctions Disappearing Between Cable, Web
   Senators warn Web group to tread carefully with new domain names
   Don't fold on Internet gambling ban - editorial

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   Democrats slam GOP anti-network neutrality provision
   Microsoft: We can remotely delete Windows 8 apps
   Apple’s Claim of Android Rip-Off Awaits Trade Agency Ruling
   Ten Facts about Mobile Broadband - research
   Open Wireless vs. Licensed Spectrum: Evidence from Market Adoption - research
   Verizon Wireless blames technical issue for outage [links to web]
   LightSquared Teams With Skype Co-Founder To Offer 'Free' Wireless Broadband [links to web]
   Federal study: Texting by drivers up 50 percent even as states pass laws banning it [links to web]
   Mobile payments: Bigger than cash in 2015?

CONTENT
   OPEN Anti-Piracy Draft Circulated By PROTECT IP, SOPA Opponents
   The Internet’s Intolerable Acts - op-ed
   Controversial Copyright Bills Would Violate First Amendment–Letters to Congress - analysis
   Rupert Murdoch Lobbies Congress To Restrict Internet
   Black Friday Tops News Online [links to web]
   Amazon May Be Eyeing Up Carrier Billing For Its Mobile Content Business
   Who Are The Most-Read Authors On The Web? [links to web]
   Reality on MTV: Gender Portrayals on MTV Reality Programming
   Judge Allows Dodgers’ Plan for TV Rights [links to web]
   New 'Adware' Apps Bug Facebook, Google

PRIVACY
   Dear Carrier IQ: If you want to track me, you need to ask me first - op-ed
   Google says does not work with, support Carrier IQ [links to web]
   Lawmakers question Facebook on privacy

CYBERSECURITY
   Obama Administration releases cloud computing security guidelines
   Nation states seen as biggest cybersecurity threat

HEALTH/EDUCATION
   USDA Funding To Improve Access to Education and Health Care in Rural Areas - press release
   Jawbone offers 'no questions asked' refund on Up wristbands [links to web]

TELECOM
   Connect America Fund order details access charge reforms - analysis
   Forget fiber, telcos should deliver customer service to the home -- and fast [links to web]

FCC REFORM
   FCC Seeks Input on Reform Plan

POLICYMAKERS
   Senate Commerce Committee approves FCC nominees

STORIES FROM ABROAD
   Samsung Wins Approval for Australia Tablet Sales as Apple Loses
   France Telecom Loses EU Appeal Over $1.37 Billion Tax Benefits [links to web]
   French court says no to iPhone 4S ban [links to web]

MORE ONLINE
   Government-wide Information Sharing for Democratic Accountability - research [links to web]
   Reading is alive and increasingly electronic [links to web]

back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

DON’T STIFLE ONLINE VOICES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Steven Myers, Heather Thomas]
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other international leaders urged countries and private businesses to fight increasing efforts to restrict access to the Internet by repressive governments and even some democratic ones. Opening a two-day conference on digital freedom at The Hague sponsored by Google and the Dutch government, Sec Clinton warned that restrictions on the Internet threatened not only basic freedoms and human rights, but also international commerce and the free flow of information that increasingly makes it possible. “When ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled and people constrained in their choices, the Internet is diminished for all of us,” Sec Clinton said. She added: “There isn’t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet. There’s just the Internet.” “More and more countries are trying now to regulate and control the Internet,” Uri Rosenthal, the foreign minister of the Netherlands, said after meeting separately with Sec Clinton. “And it is unacceptable that Web sites are blocked, Internet queues are filtered, content manipulated and bloggers are attacked and imprisoned.”
benton.org/node/106900 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top


EXPORTING CENSORSHIP
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Steve Stecklow]
Pressure mounted Dec 8 on US and Western companies that sell censorship and surveillance technology to repressive regimes, with a congressman introducing a bill that would restrict such exports. Separately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on corporations to do "human-rights due diligence" before making sales in new markets. "In recent months we've seen cases where companies' products and services were used as tools of oppression," Sec Clinton told a conference on Internet freedom in the Netherlands. In Washington, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the latest version of a bill—the "Global Online Freedom Act"—that would prohibit the export of certain telecommunications technology that can be used for online censorship or surveillance to countries that the State Department determined was restricting use of the Internet. "Current export control laws do not take into account the human rights impact of these exports and therefore do not create any incentive for U.S. companies to evaluate their role in assisting repressive regimes," Rep Smith said during a hearing on the proposed bill.
benton.org/node/106899 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

USA NOT NO 1 IN BROADBAND
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Alas, poor us. The nation that invented the personal computer, television, the cellphone, the smart phone and — oh yes — the Internet, lags in creatively using all these things. In both land-line and mobile broadband, America is, at best, mediocre when measured on a variety of metrics such as penetration rates, Internet speeds and price. Why? The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation. In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate. In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high. If the U.S. were to take a similar tack, it would be a return to the way things once were. In the years of dial-up, phone and Internet service were two distinct things, with consumers getting multiple choices for the latter. A sweeping 1996 telecommunications law envisioned that state of affairs continuing after the move to broadband. But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be. Today, in much of the country, consumers have little choice but to get their land-line service from a cable TV company, if they can get it at all. Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon. All this poses a problem. Being less connected than other countries in an age of information and technology could put the U.S. economy at a competitive disadvantage. If nothing else, this much seems certain: Presidents Bush and Obama won't be the last to bemoan the state of American broadband.
benton.org/node/106869 | USAToday
Recommend this Headline
back to top


NEW DIGITAL DIVIDE
[SOURCE: Colorlines, AUTHOR: Hatty Lee]
There are, in essence, two Internets emerging in the United States. The first is the one that’s driven innovation and commerce for the past two decades: traditional Internet hookups that connect wires to desktop computers and allow users to work, play and explore from the comfort of their home. That Internet is regulated—loosely, but regulated—by the federal government, which has issued rules that prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with their users’ online access. Those rules exist as an implicit acknowledgement that the Internet isn’t just fun and games, but rather the central communication platform of the 21st century, an essential medium for everything from commerce to elections. Meanwhile, mobile wireless is quickly taking shape as a second Internet, one in which people of color and users with little income are entirely dependent upon cell phone companies for access. That Internet is unregulated. Companies are free to do as they please with customers—they can control what users see, do and say online. And as the country grows more dependent on high speed Internet, the handful of companies who own its mobile version are steadily working to consolidate their power. Whether and how policy makers allow that to happen may determine who gets a voice in our 21st century economy, and who’s left as its prey.
benton.org/node/106860 | ColorLines | Colorlines – what divide looks like
Recommend this Headline
back to top


BRINGING HIGH-SPEED INTERNET TO ALL
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Ivan Seidenberg]
[Commentary] Susan Crawford’s Dec. 4 Sunday Review essay, “The New Digital Divide,” contributes to the perception that America’s broadband marketplace is second tier. That is simply not so. About 95 percent of the United States population has access to broadband, with the vast majority having multiple competitors to choose from. The 2011 World Economic Forum global survey ranks the United States first in Internet competition. Through 2010 the number of American subscribers to fiber-based services was more than double that of Europe. Broadband prices per megabyte have decreased 89 percent — to about 5 cents per megabyte — in the past three years, while at the same time broadband speeds have increased more than 20-fold. The United States also leads the world in wireless broadband, with Americans accounting for 21 percent of all 3G subscribers. In this highly competitive, innovative market, prices for such services are declining. America has a very good broadband story; someone just has to be willing to tell it. [Seidenberg is the Chairman of Verizon]
benton.org/node/106892 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top


WIRELESS BROADBAND
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Hal Singer]
[Commentary] The main problem with Susan P. Crawford’s analysis is that her vision is almost entirely grounded in a rapidly disappearing reality: Internet access via wireline technologies. The International Data Corporation projects that the number of wireless-only small and medium-sized businesses in the United States will grow by about 13 percent annually over the next five years. Wireless technologies, including smartphones and tablets, continue to replace landlines for millions of Americans, with this trend especially strong among the young. This points up two problems with Ms. Crawford’s call for a large federal program to spur wireline deployment. First, her solution is a technology that Americans are increasingly abandoning as unsuited to their (mobile) needs. It’s yesterday’s solution to today’s problem. More important, a wireline “Marshall Plan” would do absolutely nothing to address our most pressing broadband need — freeing more spectrum to handle wireless data growth. [Singer is a managing director of Navigant Economics, a consulting firm]
benton.org/node/106891 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top


TRUE UNIVERSAL SERVICE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Shirley Bloomfield]
[Commentary] Kudos to Susan P. Crawford for recognizing the significance of regulatory policy in closing the digital divide. Ms. Crawford points out that all Americans need the advantages brought about through high-speed wired networks that are often expensive to deploy. Local, community-based rural telecommunications companies are part of the solution. These companies are committed to serving the underserved and the unserved, but can do so only with regulatory certainty and sufficient support. It is essential for the Obama administration to show a greater commitment to true universal service. That will encourage small, rural providers to invest in high-speed broadband networks and help ensure a brighter future for those most in need of affordable, high-quality broadband service. [Bloomfield is National Telecommunications Cooperative Association]
benton.org/node/106890 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top


VERIZON ENDS DIRECTV DEAL
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Cecilia Kang]
Verizon Chief Executive Lowell McAdam said the telecom giant plans to end its wireless LTE partnership with satellite provider DirectTV and will stop its buildout of FiOS television and Internet services in the next couple years. The moves come as Verizon Wireless forges a new partnership with cable giants to cross-market phone, video, Internet and cellular services. The comments, made at a UBS Global Media and Communications Conference in New York, signal massive shifts in the industry that have raised concerns with antitrust regulators, according to a person familiar with the thinking of government officials. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said the end of its partnership with DirectTV for a trial LTE service is “the first direct fall-out from Verizon’s ground-breaking deal” with cable companies. And even though McAdam insisted that Verizon will rigorously promote its FiOS video and Internet service in areas that compete with cable, the company said it doesn’t have plans to expand the expensive fiber network beyond what’s already been announced and scheduled for buildout over the next couple years.
benton.org/node/106888 | Washington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top


DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CABLE AND WEB DISAPPEARING
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
National Cable & Telecommunications Association president and former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell says the association has been "very engaged" in the privacy bills currently making the rounds on Capitol Hill, driven by the fact that, over time, there will be fewer distinctions between what cable does and what the Web does. To that point, he says he agrees that in a technical sense cable companies are now broadband providers, but that he thinks video is still a compelling service that operators will be in for a long time to come. Powell said examples of the cross-polinization of cable and Web were the use of metadata and providing more tailored advertising. "These are things that cable industries will want to do as well, so we're very focused on making sure we're not left out of that equation." He said the Telecom Act of 1996 could use a rewrite and is "fading" in its relevance. He reiterated his long-standing criticism of the FCC regulating in "balkanized buckets," said it leads to jurisdictional disputes and litigation. He said it contains heavy inefficiencies and will likely "die of its own weight." He says that, at some point, Congress has to migrate us out of there" and to a "bit is a bit" world.
benton.org/node/106881 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top


ICANN HEARING
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
Senators urged the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to move carefully with its plan to open the Internet up to hundreds of new domain endings at a hearing. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said the group "better [move] slowly and cautiously." Kurt Pritz, a senior vice president at ICANN, said the group is expecting between 500 and 1,000 applications for new top-level domains. But an array of advertisers, businesses and nonprofits are worried the plan could force them to defensively buy up potential domains related to their brand. They have also expressed concern that the new domains would create opportunities for scammers to set up fake websites to take advantage of consumers. Dan Jaffee, vice president of government relations for the Association of National Advertisers, called the plan a "reckless experiment."
benton.org/node/106853 | Hill, The | AdWeek
Recommend this Headline
back to top


GAMBLING BAN
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Powerful and wealthy political forces are pushing Congress to repeal the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. They even hope to slip a repeal measure quietly into a bill as Congress rushes to pass legislation this month. In addition, a few cash-strapped states are moving toward legalizing this highly addictive type of gambling within their borders. Momentum to overturn the act picked up steam last year when major casinos, which once feared any competition from the Internet, jumped on board. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also flip-flopped. Since then, a powerful lobby for legalization has grown larger, even hiring a former FBI director and a former Homeland Security chief. The monied interests behind legalization know that Internet gambling would come with many social problems – especially among teens, who could not easily be deterred from using such websites. Hearings in the House this fall revealed the extent of the potential problem and how Internet gambling would require extensive regulation. Simply stopping Internet gambling is the best course. And now the Justice Department is fully on board.
benton.org/node/106896 | Christian Science Monitor, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

DEMS SLAM ANTI-NETWORK NEUTRALITY PROVISION
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
Reps. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) slammed Republicans for including a controversial anti-network neutrality provision in a popular spectrum bill. "That shouldn't be in the bill," Rep Eshoo said. "It's ludicrous." Rep Markey called the provision "very problematic." Although Democrats support the broad outline of the spectrum legislation, they are adamantly opposed to an amendment from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that would restrict the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) ability to impose network neutrality conditions on wireless companies that purchase spectrum leases at auction. The FCC adopted network neutrality rules last year that prohibit Internet providers from slowing down or blocking access to legitimate websites. Democrats say the rules protect consumers and promote competition, but Republicans say they are an unnecessary burden on businesses and amount to government control of the Internet. At a markup last week, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) called the amendment "poison," and warned it could sink the whole spectrum bill.
benton.org/node/106887 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top


MICROSOFT KILL
[SOURCE: ComputerWorld, AUTHOR: Gregg Keizer]
Microsoft will be able to throw a "kill switch" to disable or even remove an app from users' Windows 8 devices, the company revealed in documentation released earlier this week for its upcoming Windows Store. Kill switches -- so called because a simple command can deactivate or delete an app -- are common in mobile app stores. Both Apple and Google can flip such a switch for apps distributed by the iOS App Store and Android Market, respectively. In the Windows Store terms of use, Microsoft made it clear that it can pull the kill switch at its discretion. "In cases where your security is at risk, or where we're required to do so for legal reasons, you may not be able to run apps or access content that you previously acquired or purchased a license for," said Microsoft in the Windows Store terms. "In cases where we remove a paid app from your Windows 8 Beta device not at your direction, we may refund to you the amount you paid for the license," Microsoft added. The company also noted that along with the app, it may also scrub data created by the app from a device.
benton.org/node/106875 | ComputerWorld
Recommend this Headline
back to top


APPLE VS ANDROID DECISION DUE
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Susan Decker]
For two years, Apple has told the world that phones running on Google’s Android operating system are iPhone rip-offs. Now Apple is about to learn whether a U.S. trade agency thinks its claims have merit. The International Trade Commission is set to rule Dec. 14 in a patent complaint lodged by Apple against rival smartphone maker HTC Corp. The decision, postponed from the original date of tomorrow, would mark the first final verdict from any judicial entity in Apple’s global patent war against HTC and fellow Android-phone makers Samsung Electronics Co. and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. A ruling for Apple may lead to a ban on U.S. imports of HTC devices, derailing the Taoyuan, Taiwan-based company’s trajectory from a small contract manufacturer founded in 1997 to the biggest U.S. smartphone seller in the third quarter. A victory for HTC may help it secure favorable terms in any settlement with Apple.
benton.org/node/106883 | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top


MOBILE BROADBAND
[SOURCE: Brookings Institution, AUTHOR: Darrell West]
Mobile broadband is reshaping society, communications, and the global economy. With smart phone usage surpassing that of personal computers, there has been a sea change in the way consumers access and share information. Powerful mobile devices and sophisticated digital applications enable users to build businesses, access financial and health care records, conduct research, and complete transactions anywhere. This revolution in how consumers and businesses access information represents a fundamental turning point in human history. For the first time, people are able to reach the Internet in a relatively inexpensive and convenient manner. Regardless of geographic location, they can use mobile broadband for communications, education, health care, public safety, disaster preparedness, and economic development.
In this report, I review ten facts about mobile broadband. I show how the mobile economy is reshaping the global landscape. Both in developed and emerging markets, there are major opportunities to create jobs, and create social and economic connections. With the mobile industry generating $1.3 trillion in revenues, it is important to understand how telephony is affecting the way people relate to one another.
Smartphones Will Outnumber Personal Computers in 2012
Mobile Broadband Is Growing Much Faster than Fixed Broadband
More Than One-Third of Americans Own Smartphones and Use Them for a Wide Range of Services
Mobile Technology Has Gone Global
The Mobile Economy Is Creating Jobs and Driving Development in the United States and Around the World
Mobile Applications Are Reshaping Education
Mobile Helps Patients and Health Care Providers
Mobile Alters the Way People Engage Politically
Mobile Empowers Entrepreneurs and Overcomes Digital Disparities
Mobile Is Vital to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
benton.org/node/106862 | Brookings Institution
Recommend this Headline
back to top


OPEN WIRELESS VS LICENSED SPECTRUM
[SOURCE: Berkman Center for Internet and Society, AUTHOR: Yochai Benkler]
The paper reviews evidence from eight wireless markets -- mobile broadband; wireless healthcare; smart grid communications; inventory management; access control; mobile payments; fleet management; and secondary markets in spectrum -- and find that markets are adopting unlicensed wireless strategies in mission-critical applications, in many cases more so than they are building on licensed strategies. Eighty percent of wireless healthcare; seventy percent of smart grid communications; and forty to ninety percent of mobile broadband data to smartphones and tablets use unlicensed strategies. Unlicensed technologies are entirely dominant in inventory management and access control. For mobile payments, current major applications use unlicensed, and early implementations of mobile phone payments suggest there is no particular benefit to licensed strategies in this space. Fleet management is the one area where licensed technologies are predominant. However, UPS, owner of the second largest commercial fleet in the U.S., has implemented its fleet management system purely with unlicensed wireless, suggesting that even here unlicensed may develop attractive alternatives. By contrast to these dynamic markets, secondary markets in licensed spectrum have been anemic. Market evidence suggests that unlicensed wireless strategies are becoming the primary approach for implementing wireless communications technology. Actual market deployments of wireless technologies suggests that unlicensed follows the innovation model of the Internet, applied to wireless communications. Licensed-spectrum, by contrast, replicates the telephone system model.
Future spectrum policy debates, in particular those surrounding TV band auctions and reallocation of federal spectrum, should secure an adequate development path for unlicensed technologies, devices, and services at least as much as they emphasize flexibly-licensed exclusive rights.
benton.org/node/106854 | Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Recommend this Headline
back to top


MOBILE PAYMENTS
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Meghan Kelly]
We just can’t give enough love to mobile payments as we watch the world move from cash to credit to cardless. Intuit is feeling the evolution too and created an infographic to explain just how much mobile payments are growing and where they’ll be in 2015. The two biggest payment players last year were obviously credit and debit cards, with a small, but rising mobile payments only making up 5 percent of purchases executed. But important to note is that as credit, debit and other forms of payment increase, cash exchange decreases. People have long trusted plastic to deliver their currency, so why not trade in the plastic for airwaves? Well, according to Intuit, people will do just that. Cash is expected to drop to just over $1 trillion changing hands in 2015, and alternate payments jumping up considerably to $2.7 trillion, hugely surpassing cash as a trusted method of payment. Also important to keep in mind is the proliferation of smartphones themselves. Smartphones have permeated over 40 percent of mobile users, but more interesting is the fact that this is mirrored in business owners. 37 percent of entrepreneurs also work through the smartphone, creating a level playing field for people wanting to buy and sell over the phone.
benton.org/node/106894 | Christian Science Monitor, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CONTENT

ONLINE PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DIGITAL TRADE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
As promised, opponents of the current SOPA and PROTECT IP online foreign anti-piracy bills have introduced their own alternative legislation in the form of a draft bill. It is based on a framework outlined last week by Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), John Campbell (R-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), John Warner (D-VA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) Act would update U.S. trade laws to reflect that illegally downloading protected content -- like a TV show or film -- from a foreign-owned Web site is akin to illegally importing foreign hard goods. It would expand the powers of the International Trade Commission to enforce copyright and trademark infringement of online digital goods. "U.S. trade laws have failed to keep pace with the digital economy and have yet to extend the protections that U.S. rights-holders enjoy in the physical world to the online world," said the bill's co-sponsors, said Sen Wyden and Rep Issa in announcing the draft. Rep Issa is former chair of the Consumer Electronics Association, which also opposes the SOPA and PROTECT IP approaches, which expand the powers of studios and the Justice department to shut down infringing sites. OPEN backers say it, too, would expand industry powers, giving U.S. rights-holders the ability to petition the ITC to investigate cases of illegal digital imports.
benton.org/node/106878 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top


INTERNET’S INTOLERABLE ACTS
[SOURCE: Slate, AUTHOR: James Losey, Sascha Meinrath]
[Commentary] The United States of America was forged in resistance to collective reprisals—the punishment of many for the acts of few. In 1774, following the Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed a series of laws—including the mandated closure of the port of Boston—meant to penalize the people of Massachusetts. These abuses of power, labeled the “Intolerable Acts,” catalyzed the American Revolution by making plain the oppression of the British crown. More than 300 years later, the U.S. Congress is considering bills that would lead to collective reprisals against online communities. The Senate’s PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House are supposed to address copyright infringement and counterfeiting. In reality, they are so technically impractical that they do little to address these problems. They would, however, undermine participatory democracy and human rights, which is why these bills have garnered near-universal condemnation from both human rights groups and technologists.
benton.org/node/106877 | Slate
Recommend this Headline
back to top


SOPA, PROTECT IP AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
[SOURCE: Marvin Ammori, AUTHOR: Laurence Tribe, Marvin Ammori]
The authors submitted letters and legal memoranda to Congress explaining that proposed copyright legislation would violate the First Amendment and be struck down in court. We both felt compelled to write because of the threat to freedom of speech from the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA) in the House. Others have also come out to oppose the bills, including the leading civil liberties organizations (at home and abroad), venture capitalists, the leading technology platforms from Facebook and Google to Tumblr and Zynga, and (today) hundreds of entrepreneurs. In fact, a million people emailed Congress and well over 90,000 personally called their Members to oppose the bills, many during a coordinated “American Censorship Day” inspired by the bills’ free speech burdens, a day organized by Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and Mozilla, among others. Over 90 law professors have also come out against the Senate version and even more against the House version. The bills are not limited; they’re sledgehammers not scalpels.
benton.org/node/106876 | Marvin Ammori
Recommend this Headline
back to top


MURDOCH BACKS SOPA, PROTECT IP
[SOURCE: The Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Michael McAuliff, Ryan Grim]
News Corp. honcho Rupert Murdoch threw his weight behind Congress' attempt to restrict the Internet, personally lobbying leaders on Capitol Hill Wednesday for two measures that purport to combat piracy. Murdoch's media empire is among some 350 large corporations that have come out in favor of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, as well as the Protect IP Act in the Senate. Both measures would require Internet operators to police activity online, and would mandate Internet giants like Google and AOL (the parent company of The Huffington Post and an opponent of the bills) and credit card companies to take down sites that have content deemed to be in violation of copyright rules. The battle has pitted huge content generators like Disney and the motion picture industry against their online competitors, with each side reportedly spending some $90 million on lobbying efforts.
benton.org/node/106866 | Huffington Post, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top


BANGO
[SOURCE: paidContent.org, AUTHOR: Ingrid Lunden]
Amazon has been jumping with two feet into the mobile world -- launching an app storefront, an enhanced selection of cloud-based content, its own customized mobile platform and a tablet to run it in less than a year. Now, as the newest client of UK-based mobile billing company Bango, Amazon could be getting ready to introduce a new way of getting users to pay for all of that. Publicly-traded Bango released a brief statement to the market to announce it had signed a deal with Amazon to provide the company with its mobile payment services. The announcement was short on details, and a Bango spokesperson declined to give more information when we contacted the company by phone. But it looks like it could be a move by Amazon to introduce carrier billing into its growing mobile operation. A look at what Bango does already could be the clue to how it will work: Bango currently provides mobile billing services for content companies and content distributors, which are integrated into apps (covering both downloads and in-app purchases), mobile web content and other content delivered through mobile devices. The company offers two routes for payment: either via credit cards or by charging directly to a users’ phone bill. The carrier billing element is already used by two other app stores. It could be that Amazon wants to use Bango’s services specifically for its own app storefront, which runs on Android devices, including the Kindle Fire, and was introduced earlier this year. The Appstore has yet to make its way outside of the U.S. and this could be one route to making that a reality, too.
benton.org/node/106865 | paidContent.org
Recommend this Headline
back to top


PTC STUDY ON REALITY TV
[SOURCE: Parents Television Council, AUTHOR: ]
In a new report, the Parents Television Council examines the good, the bad and the ugly of MTV’s most-watched reality programming. PTC’s new study is based on a content analysis of the most popular primetime cable reality shows among children and teens ages 12 to 17 during the 2011 TV season. The top four programs all aired on MTV and include: “Jersey Shore,” “Real World,” “Teen Mom 2” and “16 and Pregnant.” The overarching question PTC sought to address was, “What messages are being communicated to young viewers through the lens and language of reality television?” The findings suggest a disturbingly unrealistic portrayal of “reality” with harsh, demeaning, degrading and sexualized dialogue. While women were routinely the recipients of denigrating language, they also were more likely than men to be negative to themselves and to other women. Major Findings:
Only 24% of what females said about themselves was positive across all shows combined.
Positive dialogue between females focused on their appearance, sense of accomplishment and emotional resilience.
Overall, women were more disparaging than men when speaking of themselves or someone of their own gender.
While terms men used for each other were often viewed as complimentary (e.g., big man, dawg, superhero, MacGyver, winner), women used far more degrading language when talking about other females (e.g., b*tch, c*nt, rodent, skank, trash bag, slut, trick, ho).
Females talked about sex acts more than men, talked about sex more graphically than men, mentioned sexual body parts more than men, and talked about intercourse and foreplay more than men.
Although 88% of the sexual dialogue between females and males across all shows focused on intercourse and preliminary activities leading to intercourse, the topics of virginity (0.2%), contraceptives (1.4%) and STDs (2%) were only mentioned 4% of the time.
“Jersey Shore” made up 47% of the disparaging remarks and 59% of the sexual references across all four shows.
The majority of disparaging language on “Jersey Shore” came from Ronnie and Sammi. Collectively, the two accounted for almost 21% of the disparaging language across all shows.
benton.org/node/106861 | Parents Television Council
Recommend this Headline
back to top


ADWARE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Emily Steel]
A new generation of controversial advertising software is wreaking havoc on the ad businesses of Web giants including Facebook, Google and Yahoo, inserting a layer of ads on websites or covering up other paying ads. The software comes in the form of applications that allow people to customize their Facebook profiles with, say, special borders of snowflakes or colorful designs or turbo-charge Web searches. But in downloading the software, computer users open up a door to ads that the big Internet companies complain are rogue. Once people download the apps, with names like PageRage and BuzzDock, extra ads can appear on Facebook and search-engine results pages. Facebook and Google don't see any of the revenue from these ads, which often are for big-name companies including Gap, American Express and AT&T. The vast majority of user complaints that Facebook receives about advertising are because these ads.
benton.org/node/106897 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

PRIVACY

DEAR CARRIER IQ
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Joshua Topolsky]
[Commentary] If you’re online in any way, someone somewhere is probably tracking what you’re doing right now. Snipping pieces of data. Logging your travels. You shouldn’t be startled by this because this has been going on for a long time. Now, however — in the age of the do-anything-anywhere-device — it’s becoming increasingly important to know just how, why, where, and when you’re being watched. To know what’s being collected, who is collecting it, and who can view that collection. The real problem is the fact that it’s been kept secret. Carrier IQ has partnerships with carriers or device makers, so you never give your consent to this third-party service to allow tracking. Instead, your carrier or phone maker simply covers this data collection in one of its big, confusing privacy disclosure documents you get when you buy into the service or hardware. Secondly, and more importantly, you don’t have any oversight in regard to who can see the data. The way I see it, that’s the real question we have to begin asking about the data that’s collected. It’s not about who grabs it, or where it lives. It’s simply about access.
benton.org/node/106889 | Washington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top


LAWMAKERS QUESTION FACEBOOK
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Gautham Nagesh]
A bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg asking for details on the site’s privacy practices following its recent settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The social networking giant recently settled a complaint from the FTC by agreeing to implement a comprehensive privacy program including outside audits every two years for the next two decades. Facebook has also agreed not to misrepresent its privacy practices or face fines for each future violation. “With great opportunity comes great responsibility, and with more than 800 million active users and an untold number of nonusers visiting Facebook or partnering websites every day, your company has the opportunity to collect vast amounts of data about an enormous number of people,” wrote Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) Diana DeGette (D-CO), Joe Barton (R-TX) and Edward Markey (D-MA).
benton.org/node/106886 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CYBERSECURITY

FEDRAMP
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Gautham Nagesh]
The Obama administration released its long-awaited security standards for firms seeking to provide the government with cloud computing services. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) will now be required for all agencies purchasing storage, applications and other remote services from vendors. The Obama administration has championed cloud computing as a means to save money and accelerate the government's adoption of new technologies. "With FedRAMP, we have established a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services which every agency will be required to use," said federal chief information officer Steve Van Roekel.
benton.org/node/106852 | Hill, The | OMB
Recommend this Headline
back to top


NATION STATES AND CYBERSECURITY
[SOURCE: nextgov, AUTHOR: Andrew Lapin]
A prominent cybersecurity expert and the Estonian ambassador to the United States cautioned government insiders to be mindful of the significant threat that coordinated attacks by nation states can pose to a country's digital infrastructure. Speaking at a breakfast hosted by Government Executive and the European Affairs journal, Dmitri Alperovitch, president of Asymmetric Cyber Operations LLC, outlined the categories of Internet adversaries, placing nation states ahead of terrorist groups, hacktivist collectives and organized crime as the biggest threat to national security on the digital front. "I don't believe we have a cyber problem today," Alperovitch said. "I believe we have a China problem today, I believe we have a Russia problem today." The true danger of nationally coordinated cyberattacks, he said, is that they are easy to deny, making a police or military response impossible.
benton.org/node/106880 | nextgov
Recommend this Headline
back to top

HEALTH/EDUCATION

USDA DISTANCE LEARING AND TELEMED
[SOURCE: Department of Agriculture, AUTHOR: Press release]
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that recipients in 34 states and one territory will receive funding to improve access to health care and educational services in rural areas. Funding is provided through the USDA Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Program. The grants, administered by USDA Rural Development through its Rural Utilities Service, will help fund 100 distance learning and telemedicine projects, including six in North Carolina. In Duplin County – about 60 minutes from Fayetteville, James Sprunt Community College will receive a $192,870 grant that will enable faculty to offer college-level and advanced placement courses to a network of five surrounding high schools. Other North Carolina recipients include UNC-Chapel Hill, East Carolina University, Easter Seals UCP NC & VA, Sampson Regional Medical Center and Mission Healthcare Foundation, Inc.
Also included in this round of awards is funding to the Maine Sea Coast Missionary Society to buy video equipment for a ship-based medical examining room. In Sac City, Iowa, Loring Hospital will receive video conferencing equipment to connect the emergency room, outpatient and inpatient centers with local schools and area nursing homes. In Mississippi, a grant will link the University of South Mississippi with 27 schools to provide a wide range of classes to students. The Kiamichi Technology Center in Oklahoma will use grant funds to provide training to firefighters, emergency medical technicians and community members. The DLT program provides expanded educational opportunities to students in extremely remote areas. For example, in Native communities above the Arctic Circle in Alaska, there are sometimes up to three grades in a single village classroom, and DLT funding allows teaching through remote teleconferencing. In Barrow, Jana Harcharek, Director of Inupiaq Education, uses distance learning to provide dual-credit courses through Ilisagvik College. She uses the Inupiaq values, culture, history, language and philosophy as a foundation from which to provide instruction to students over a distance learning system.
benton.org/node/106855 | Department of Agriculture
Recommend this Headline
back to top

TELECOM

ICC REFORM
[SOURCE: Connected Planet, AUTHOR: Joan Engebretson]
The current access charge system has come under attack from many quarters. At a time when carriers are striving to operate their networks more cost-effectively, the terminating access charges that they pay to other carriers for completing calls are becoming increasingly problematic. Originating carriers do not control who their customers call and therefore cannot predict what their access charge costs will be. As a result, some carriers have gone to great lengths to avoid paying per-minute access charges, even in some cases deliberately failing to complete calls to rural areas, where those charges tend to be the highest. The Connect America Fund order cracks down on access charge avoidance in the short term, while phasing out per-minute access charges in the long term. Within six years for price cap carriers and competitive carriers that benchmark access rates to the price cap carriers, the FCC aims to bring terminating access charges to zero. For rate-of-return carriers and CLECs that benchmark access rates to them, the transition will occur over nine years. The FCC outlines two methods through which carriers will be able to recover some of the revenues lost as a result of this transition. One is by raising rates for basic local service. For incumbent carriers, the transition plan calls for an increase of up to 50 cents per month for residential and small business customers each year. For multi-line business customers, the maximum increase is $1.00 per month per year. There is a $30 cap on basic residential service, and customers who participate in the low-income Lifeline program are exempt from basic rate increases. Competitive carriers are expected to recover reduced access revenues solely through end user charges and are not subject to the limits on rate increases.
benton.org/node/106850 | Connected Planet
Recommend this Headline
back to top

FCC REFORM

FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING RULES
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: ]
On November 7, 2011, the Commission released a Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules (“Preliminary Plan”). The Preliminary Plan describes the Commission’s ongoing process of identifying outmoded or counterproductive rules and provides an overview of recent and current proceedings that include retrospective analysis. The Commission seeks comment generally on the Preliminary Plan and also seeks specific recommendations as outlined below.
The Commission is committed to being a responsive, efficient and effective agency that harnesses and promotes the technological and economic opportunities of the new millennium. As part of the Commission’s goal to be a model of excellence in government, the agency has, since 2009, undertaken far-reaching initiatives designed to achieve its statutory objectives while removing burdens on industry and promoting innovation and job growth.
In furtherance of these objectives, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:
1) What additional steps should the Commission take to identify rules that should be changed, streamlined, consolidated, or removed?
2) How can the Commission further reduce burdens on industry and consumers while fostering competition, diversity and innovation?
3) Are there Commission rules or reporting requirements that are duplicative or that have conflicting requirements among its bureaus and offices or with other agencies?
4) Are there Commission rules or reporting requirements that could be modified to better accomplish their regulatory objectives?
In addition, commenters are encouraged to submit other suggestions that may help the Commission develop better regulations and processes. Commenters are asked to specifically identify the rules or reporting requirements they are addressing, and to provide specific suggestions for ways the Commission should modify such rules or reporting requirements, including alternative language where possible.
Comments Due: February 8, 2012
Reply Comments Due: February 22, 2012
benton.org/node/106882 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top

POLICYMAKERS

FCC, FTC NOMINEES
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee unanimously approved President Obama's two nominees to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Ajit Pai and Jessica Rosenworcel, on a voice vote. The committee also approved the President's nominees to the Federal Trade Commission, Jon Leibowitz and Maureen Ohlhausen. Leibowitz currently serves as the chairman of the commission.
The nominations will now move to the full Senate for consideration, but Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has promised to block the FCC nominees unless the FCC releases documents related to its review of LightSquared, which plans to launch a wholesale wireless broadband service.
benton.org/node/106868 | Hill, The | B&C
Recommend this Headline
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

SAMSUNG OK IN AUSTRALIA
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Joe Schneider, Jun Yang]
Samsung Electronics will start selling its rival to Apple’s iPad 2 in Australian stores before Christmas after the country’s highest court denied Apple’s bid to maintain a ban on Samsung Galaxy tablets. Chief Justice Robert French, on behalf of the three-judge High Court panel, said that Apple failed to persuade them that it could win on appeal and denied the company a hearing. He reinstated an appeals court judgment lifting the ban on the Galaxy 10.1 tablets in Australia. The ruling ends Apple’s four-month effort to keep the iPad’s biggest rival out of Australia on claims it infringes patents related to touch-screen technology. Apple and Samsung, the world’s biggest makers of smartphones and tablet computers, have sued each other on four continents since Apple accused Samsung in April of “slavishly copying” its products.
benton.org/node/106893 | Bloomberg | Reuters
Recommend this Headline
back to top

© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.