February 2012

Commenters Weigh In on Verizon's Cable Spectrum Deals

It was rush hour in the Verizon/SpectrumCo/Cox Federal Communications Commission docket as comments came in in advance of the midnight Feb. 21 deadline.

Among the comments the FCC asked for is how it should treat the separate, exchange-of-service agreements between Verizon and the cable companies. Public interest groups and wireless competitors critical of the deal have said the FCC should pay a lot of attention to them. But the Free State Foundation, a free market think tank critical of government overregulation and too heavy a hand in merger reviews, said the commission should not include those deals in its consideration of this one. "These separate commercial agreements, which do not involve the transfer of any licenses, are not contingent on approval of the proposed transfers of spectrum licenses, or vice versa, and by their terms they do not call for commission review," said Free State in its filing. The Tech Policy Institute was all for the deal, saying that the deal "should benefit consumers and does not in itself raise antitrust concerns because the spectrum is currently not being used," according to its filing.

The New Jersey rate counsel, which advocates for consumers during rate-setting proceedings for public utilities, said the FCC should block the transaction because the deal would eliminate possible competitors and enrich sellers that hoarded airwaves.

Free Press filed a petition to deny, saying the transaction would tilt the playing field toward a wireless/wireline cartel of cable and telco operators via separate joint marketing agreements. "Neither the spectrum sale nor the joint-marketing agreements that are part of these transactions would succeed as stand-alone deals," said Free Press. "And while Verizon wants this spectrum, it does not need it, and we don't believe it intends to put this highly valuable resource to its most immediate and efficient use."

Privacy Report Could Be Released This Week

The Commerce Department appears close to finally releasing its long-awaited final report outlining the Obama Administration's position on consumer privacy online. The report is likely to be released as soon as Feb 23.

While the report apparently has been completed for weeks, the agency has been trying to line up some big-name support to help release it, possibly Vice President Joe Biden. The report is not expected to include any major differences from the draft report the department released in December 2010. It is, however, likely to include the Administration's previous calls for Congress to pass legislation calling for a "privacy bill of rights" that would establish basic privacy protections for consumers. Politico reports that major stakeholders in the online privacy debate are being invited to the White House on Thursday for an event about the Administration’s next steps.

Pressure on Google over privacy problems mounts

Pressure against Google is mounting over the company’s questionable privacy practices. The Electronic Privacy Information Center pursued its lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission — a move aimed at getting the agency to fine Google over a new policy that advocates say would violate user privacy.

EPIC said that recent revelations that Google may have purposefully worked around the privacy settings of Apple’s Safari browser show the firm needs to be punished for its behavior. “The Safari hack provides more evidence that Google should be barred from making the proposed changes on March 1,” said Mark Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. On March 1, Google plans to combine data from users’ Gmail across its 60 services to be used for behavioral advertising. Account holders to Google’s services cannot opt out of the new system.

Google Sued by Apple Safari-User Over Web-Browser Privacy

Google officials were sued for violating users’ privacy rights on Apple’s Safari Web browser by bypassing computer settings designed to block monitoring of consumers’ online activity.

Google, the world’s biggest Internet-search company, has been dodging privacy settings in Safari, which serves as the primary Web browser on Apple’s iPhone and iPad products, lawyers for an Illinois man who uses the Safari browser said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Delaware. “Google’s willful and knowing actions violated” federal wiretapping laws and other computer-related statutes, attorneys for Matthew Soble said in the complaint.

Google says IE privacy policy is impractical in modern Web

Microsoft's privacy protection feature in Internet Explorer, known as P3P, is impractical to comply with while providing modern web functionality such as cookie-based features, Google said in response to an accusation from Microsoft that Google had bypassed privacy protections in Internet Explorer.

Newer cookie-based features are broken by the Microsoft implementation in IE, Google said. These include features such as Facebook "Like" buttons, the ability to sign-in to websites using a Google account, and hundreds more modern web services. It is well known that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft's request while providing this web functionality, Google added. Google said it has been open about its approach on P3P, and so have other websites including Facebook.

What Google's Privacy Snafu Means for Self-Regulation

Will Google's latest privacy misstep compromise the ad industry's self-regulation efforts?

The discovery that Google and a handful of other companies were circumventing the privacy settings on Apple's Safari browser and had to recant has already brought back the privacy debate in Washington with a vengeance. Following the reports, more lawmakers raised questions and many called for the Federal Trade Commission to step in. But the controversy also could have repercussions for the integrity of the ad industry that has been working hard to convince Washington that it could self-regulate privacy policies. Just last week, days before the Google-Safari contretemps, the Network Advertising Association, of which Google is the largest ad network member, put out its annual audit confirming its members were in compliance with the organization's privacy code and guidelines. The whole incident with Google leaves the Network Advertising Initiative, a member of the Digital Advertising Alliance that is rolling out a self-regulatory program across the industry, in an awkward spot.

Study Links TV Content To Ad Value

Bravo said a neuroscience study it commissioned shows advertising has a considerably better chance of resonating when shown during a program with related content -- i.e., food brands during “Top Chef.”

The study, conducted by Melbourne-based Neuro-Insight, gauged the live brain response of 150 people using 24 ads in categories ranging from automotive to entertainment to retail. The ads were within six series on Bravo and competitive networks, and compared consumers' brain reaction to ads related to the content with those where there was no direct link. The research found that in the brain regions where long-term memory is stored, neuro-activity on average is 15% greater when ads are contextually relevant to the content. Bravo said, however, that effectiveness is not simple, such as a natural link between a Macy’s ad and “Fashion Hunters.” A “stronger impact” comes when the creative content has a certain appeal -- even if it is in a somewhat unrelated category -- such as when a car ad highlights the “beauty and glamour of the driving experience” airs during a fashion program.

Twitter Diplomacy: State Department 2.0

Robert Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, is part of a new generation of diplomats using online tools such as Facebook and Twitter to get their message out.

In fact, these days, U.S. diplomats take a course in what one State Department official calls "21st century statecraft" before they head out to their assignments. "I tell all our ambassadors, remember, you only have one mouth but you have two ears, so use this as a way not just of communicating with the citizens of the country where you are serving, but also understanding the point of view of people who may not be sitting at a mahogany table inside the embassy," says Alec Ross, the State Department's senior adviser on innovation.

NIST Establishes National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence

To help organizations better protect themselves from cyber threats, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced a new partnership to establish the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence.

The Center will operate as a public-private collaboration for accelerating the widespread adoption of integrated cybersecurity tools and technologies. The State of Maryland and Montgomery County (MD) are co-sponsoring the Center with NIST, which will work to strengthen U.S. economic growth by supporting automated and trustworthy e-government and e-commerce. NIST’s fiscal year 2012 appropriations provided $10 million to establish the public-private partnership to operate the center. It will include a state-of-the-art computing facility near NIST’s headquarters campus, where researchers from NIST will work with both the users and vendors of cybersecurity products and services. The center will host multi-institutional, collaborative efforts that build on expertise from industry and government.

TV Stations for Truth

Since Citizens United, an increasing number of ads -- lying or otherwise -- don’t come from the candidates directly. They come from super PACs: Third-party groups that support a candidate but, at least in theory, don’t coordinate with his campaign. This is hardly a positive development for our republic. But the silver-lining is that, as the Annenberg Public Policy Center explains on its fact-check site, independent groups are not guaranteed the same access to airwaves as candidates for federal office. TV stations have every right to reject third-party ads. Broadcasters are not exactly printing money these days, so expecting them to turn down money from the super PACs is like expecting the politicians to turn it down. Instead of rejecting an ad outright, however, they can take a more modest step: They can insist on edits for the sake of accuracy. Shocking, right?

Benton

Search