January 2013

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 2013

Sorry we’re late this morning. Alarm clock fail.

THE GOOGLE DECISION
   Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns - press release
   Google Agreement Sets a Bad Precedent of Special Treatment, Says FTC Commissioner
   How Google beat the feds - analysis
   What Google's win means - analysis
   Google Fans, Foes Weigh In on FTC Decision [links to web]
   Search Engine Marketers Like Google's FTC Concessions
   What Happens Now on Standards-Essential Patents? - analysis
   Administration's Tough Talk Belies Cautious Approach on Antitrust - analysis
   Google Pushed Hard Behind the Scenes to Convince Regulators
   Hill Weighs In On Google Settlement [links to web]
   The Case Against Google Was Always Weak - op-ed [links to web]
   Google Escapes the Feds - editorial [links to web]

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   The Question at the Core of the Data Caps Debate - analysis
   Usage-Based Pricing Plans Are Essential to Bridging the Digital Divide - analysis
   Will Rural Health-Care Providers Pay More for Broadband?
   Speedier Internet Rivals Push Past Cable
   Cities, Schools Seek Faster Broadband
   Data Dump: Are Potential Panelists Scorning Google?
   Where’s the money for telcos? Mobile broadband and cloud [links to web]
   FCC Sets Comment Deadlines for Connect America Reforms [links to web]
   Arts Organizations and Digital Technologies - research

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   Apple, Android combine for almost 90% of U.S. smartphone market [links to web]
   How AT&T and Verizon Manipulate Your Smartphone - op-ed
   Sprint is set to unleash pay-as-you-go service at $70 per month [links to web]
   Hutchison closes deal to become No. 3 in Austria [links to web]
   Survey: U.S. Web-connected devices outnumber people [links to web]
   Samsung to Sell Tizen-Based Handsets After Motorola Deal [links to web]

OWNERSHIP
   Warner Bros. Settles Big 'Smallville' Vertical Integration Lawsuit
   Time Warner Cable Keeps Some Small Channels [links to web]
   FCC Approves Liberty Media Taking Control of SiriusXM Radio
   Inquiry Into Tech Giants’ Tax Strategies Nears End [links to web]
   Gore Went to Bat for Al Jazeera, and Himself, in Current Deal

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
   New Law Enhances Our Journalists’ Reach, Improves BBG’s Use Of Resources, Increases Transparency - press release
   At Datajam, Innovators and Entrepreneurs Unleash Open Data for Global Development - press release
   State Department: Timing of Google exec's trip to North Korea not 'helpful' [links to web]
   Communications Satellites Made Legal for Export
   In the Privacy Wars, It's iSpy vs. gSpy - op-ed [links to web]

POLICYMAKERS
   Rep Boehner reelected as Speaker; nine Republicans defect in vote
   Senate Republicans shake up roster on Commerce panel

MORE ONLINE
   The E-Reader Revolution: Over Just as It Has Begun? [links to web]
   Facebook Is Top Social Network In 127 Countries [links to web]
   Tearing Down the “Electronic Cottage” - op-ed [links to web]
   Cablevision sues Communication Workers of America [links to web]
   The future according to Google's Larry Page [links to web]
   Google puts Motorola Libertyville campus up for sale [links to web]

back to top

THE GOOGLE DECISION

GOOGLE-FTC ANNOUNCEMENT
[SOURCE: Federal Trade Commission, AUTHOR: Press release]
Google has agreed to change some of its business practices to resolve Federal Trade Commission concerns that those practices could stifle competition in the markets for popular devices such as smart phones, tablets and gaming consoles, as well as the market for online search advertising. Under a settlement reached with the FTC, Google will meet its prior commitments to allow competitors access – on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms – to patents on critical standardized technologies needed to make popular devices such as smart phones, laptop and tablet computers, and gaming consoles. In a separate letter of commitment to the Commission, Google has agreed to give online advertisers more flexibility to simultaneously manage ad campaigns on Google’s AdWords platform and on rival ad platforms; and to refrain from misappropriating online content from so-called “vertical” websites that focus on specific categories such as shopping or travel for use in its own vertical offerings.
In response to the agency’s concerns about several of its business practices, Google has agreed to take the following steps:
Google will not seek injunctions to block rivals from using patents essential to key technologies
Google will remove restrictions hampering advertisers’ management of their ad campaigns across competing ad platforms
FTC’s investigation into allegations of search bias
The FTC also conducted an extensive investigation into allegations that Google biased its search results to disadvantage certain vertical websites; and that Google entered into anticompetitive exclusive agreements for the distribution of Google Search on both desktop and in the mobile arena. The agency decided not to take action in connection with these allegations.
benton.org/node/142377 | Federal Trade Commission | FTC briefing | WSJ | LATimes | AP | The Hill | GigaOm | ars technica | CNNMoney | InfoWorld
Recommend this Headline
back to top

FTC COMMISSIONER THOMAS ROSCH
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Liz Gannes]
The Federal Trade Commission’s search settlement with Google “creates very bad precedent and may lead to the impression that well-heeled firms such as Google will receive special treatment at the Commission,” wrote Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch in a dissenting statement. That’s both because he doesn’t think Google violated antitrust laws and because he doesn’t think the non-binding search agreement Google made has any teeth. Rosch’s pithy take: “In other words, after promising an elephant more than a year ago, the Commission instead has brought forth a couple of mice.” Commissioner Rosch, a Republican who is known as a bit of a lone-wolf thinker, is on his second-to-last day at the agency, as his replacement was confirmed earlier this week. Commissioner Rosch voted along with the rest of the five commissioners to close their search investigation and with the majority to discipline Google on standards-essential patents. But he abstained from voting for Google’s voluntary settlement agreement and a statement on the patent matter. By stretching to catch Google on something — anything — the FTC reached too far, Commissioner Rosch argued. The two issues the FTC convinced Google to back down on are scraping content to display in search “snippets” and allowing AdWords users to manage their ad campaigns across multiple platforms.
benton.org/node/142390 | Wall Street Journal | The Hill
Recommend this Headline
back to top

HOW GOOGLE BEAT THE FEDS
[SOURCE: Politico, AUTHOR: Tony Romm]
Google escaped from a nearly two-year federal antitrust probe with only a few scratches by proving that the best defense is a good offense. Instead of ignoring Washington — as rival Microsoft did before its costly monopolization trial in the 1990s — Google spent about $25 million in lobbying, cozied up to the Obama Administration and hired influential Republicans and former regulators. It even consulted with the late Robert Bork and The Heritage Foundation, while meeting with senators like John Kerry (D-MA) to make its case. In other words, these traditional outsiders worked the system from the inside. This calculated and expensive charm offensive paid off Thursday when the FTC decided not to challenge the company's dominance of the Internet search business in court, and settled a nearly two-year investigation with what critics allege was a slap on the wrist.
benton.org/node/142389 | Politico
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WHAT THE DECISION MEANS
[SOURCE: Fortune, AUTHOR: Miguel Helft]
[Commentary] Now that U.S. regulators have backed down from a confrontation, Google's rivals, led by Microsoft, are sure to press their case with the European Union and with attorneys general in various states. But Jan 3 was a day for Google to gloat. "The conclusion is clear: Google's services are good for users and good for competition," David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, wrote on the company's official blog. The Federal Trade Commission did obtain some concessions from Google: the company will license important mobile technology patents on "fair, reasonable and non discriminatory terms;" it will allow businesses to easily take their advertising campaigns from Google to rival search engines; and it will voluntarily agree to some changes in its relationship with "vertical" search engines like Yelp. But as some analysts noted, those concessions, especially on ads and vertical search, were merely tactical. Google held firm on these issues until now with one goal: give something to the FTC so it could close the search bias case and save face.
benton.org/node/142386 | Fortune
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SEARCH ENGINE MARKETERS LIKE CONCESSIONS
[SOURCE: AdWeek, AUTHOR: Katy Bachman]
Google may have gotten off easy with the Federal Trade Commission, but the changes it voluntarily agreed to make to appease regulators got major kudos from the search advertising and marketing community. Google agreed to change its ad search business policies, and, for the first time, allow search advertisers to "clone" or copy campaigns from Google to other competing search engines such as Yahoo or Bing. Websites will also be able to remove content from specialized Google results pages and still appear in Google's general Web search results.
Previous Google terms have been a real impediment, if not a colossal headache, to search engine-marketing companies like Marin Software and Kenshoo that were forced to duplicate efforts to manage identical ad campaigns across multiple platforms. "We commend Google for addressing the issue of advertising data portability and recognizing the value that companies like Kenshoo bring to the digital marketing ecosystem," said Yoav Izhar-Prato, CEO of Kenshoo, a provider of digital marketing technology used by companies and agencies such as Starcom MediaVest to create ad campaigns. The Google changes mean that now marketers are in control of ad campaigns, not Google. Vendors will be able to concentrate on optimizing campaigns for the best financial return because they will now have an apples-to-apples comparison of campaigns across platforms.
benton.org/node/142387 | AdWeek
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOOGLE AND STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Liz Gannes]
While the Federal Trade Commission this week mostly let Google off the hook on search competition, it did get the company to sign a binding consent order over how it uses standards-essential patents. Standard-essential patents — which cover basic technology shared in an industry — have become a key issue as smartphone competitors fight over intellectual property. Having been lumped into the long-running FTC antitrust investigation of Google over the past couple of months, patents weren’t originally an issue, but they emerged as an area where regulators could find fault and make a deal. So what does this mean for the larger standards-essential patent fights? A few things — with a mix of winners and losers.
The FTC is now on record saying that Google acted unfairly. That’s big.
Google doesn’t have to drop its existing appeals of SEP cases, according to clarifying comments by FTC spokesman Peter Kaplan. However, Google can’t obtain or enforce any SEP exclusion orders or injunctions.
Google’s agreement with the FTC is binding. But it is not necessarily as strong as what Apple and Microsoft already committed to voluntarily when the Department of Justice and other agencies in Europe were looking into the matter. They both said that they won’t seek injunctive relief based on SEPs, ever.
benton.org/node/142399 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CAUTIOUS APPROACH ON ANTITRUST
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brent Kendall, Thomas Catan]
Taking over his agency four years ago, Jon Leibowitz was at the head of a group of Obama appointees seeking a tougher line on antitrust violations. But the action by the Federal Trade Commission against Google is the latest example of how enforcement has generally remained cautious and within the mainstream of antitrust law. The administration has caused some pain for large corporations including AT&T, which abandoned its bid for rival cellphone provider T-Mobile USA after a Justice Department lawsuit. That case and others like it, though, relied on time-honored antitrust principles about avoiding excess concentration in an industry. "Being aggressive on antitrust enforcement is a lot harder in practice than it looks," said David Wales, a former antitrust regulator now at the law firm Jones Day, in part because regulators must ultimately win their cases in courts that have proved skeptical of expansive interpretations of antitrust law. The FTC was once eager for the Google probe, successfully pushing for jurisdiction over the Justice Department, with which it shares antitrust enforcement duties. As the investigation picked up steam, the agency enlisted high-profile corporate litigator Beth Wilkinson to help lead the effort. But even with three Obama nominees on the five-member commission, the FTC ultimately decided against moving ahead with a case.
benton.org/node/142398 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOOGLE PUSHED HARD
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Claire Cain Miller, Nick Wingfield]
For 19 months, Google pressed its case with antitrust regulators investigating the company. Working relentlessly behind the scenes, executives made frequent flights to Washington, laying out their legal arguments and shrewdly applying lessons learned from Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle in the 1990s. After regulators had pored over nine million documents, listened to complaints from disgruntled competitors and took sworn testimony from Google executives, the government concluded that the law was on Google’s side. At the end of the day, they said, consumers had been largely unharmed. That is why one of the biggest antitrust investigations of an American company in years ended with a slap on the wrist, when the Federal Trade Commission closed its investigation of Google’s search practices without bringing a complaint. Google voluntarily made two minor concessions.
benton.org/node/142397 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

QUESTION AT THE CORE OF THE DATA CAPS DEBATE
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: Michael Weinberg]
[Commentary] Internet Service Providers (ISPs) regularly insist that data caps are a legitimate tool to ease congestion on their networks and an effective way to signal value to consumers. But, as we have argued, data caps do not resolve congestion, are confusing to consumers, and lend themselves to unfair and anticompetitive behavior. In light of this disagreement, it is a promising sign that a recent study published by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and co-authored by Steven S. Wildman, the new Chief Economist of the Federal Communications Commission, moves beyond some of the previous rhetoric and takes a significant step towards focusing the debate on real areas of conflict. Unfortunately, it stops short of recognizing a critical distinction in understanding the heart of the disagreement. The debate around usage-based pricing can only move forward when people stop talking past each other and start focusing on real policy differences. By moving past congestion and examining price discrimination, this report marks a significant step towards that goal. However any argument that focuses on price discrimination alone, or that relies on assertions that are merely true for price discrimination generally, do this issue a disservice. Hopefully the next report from ISPs will try to explain why usage-based pricing, and not just price discrimination, is a reasonable way forward for the broadband market.
benton.org/node/142371 | Public Knowledge
Recommend this Headline
back to top

USAGE-BASED PRICING AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
[SOURCE: Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, AUTHOR: Dorrissa Griffin]
[Commentary] Can usage-based Internet pricing create a win-win for low income and minority consumers? Since cost is a predominant factor in encouraging broadband adoption, it can. Internet service providers are turning to usage-based Internet pricing structures to meet the demands of today’s data thirsty consumers. Usage-based pricing places the burden on the heaviest users to pay the higher prices instead of everyone paying the same flat rate. This pricing structure may help to preserve what has been called the “minority wireless miracle,” a phenomenon that describes a relatively higher smartphone adoption rate by minorities, who use smartphones to access the Internet in higher proportions than other populations. Experts such as professors Daniel M. Lyons of Boston College and Steven Wildman of Michigan State suggest that usage-based pricing provides more affordable plans for light users or new users and may encourage Internet exploration for anyone in search of content relevant to their lives. Based on the data, it seems clear that usage-based Internet pricing is a win-win for everyone, from minorities and low-income individuals to the companies themselves. While the heaviest bandwidth users will be footing more of the collective bill – proportional to the amount of broadband they’re using – this also means that other users will no longer be subsidizing their usage.
benton.org/node/142370 | Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Recommend this Headline
back to top

RURAL HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
[SOURCE: Government Technology, AUTHOR: Brian Heaton]
A new order released by the Federal Communications Commission in December will expand broadband access for some health-care providers. But the program may also hamstring the use of telemedicine by doctors who will need to pay more out of pocket to get online. Called the Healthcare Connect Fund, the program will subsidize 65 percent of broadband costs for participating providers. That’s down significantly from the 85 percent subsidy in the FCC’s existing Rural Health Care pilot program, which was established by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Eric Brown, president and CEO of the California Telehealth Network (CTN) — an organization that works with stakeholders to establish broadband connectivity for communities to improve the quality of health care — called the change an “obvious concern,” as some providers will not be able to pay the 35 percent contribution as the Healthcare Connect Fund requires. Brown explained those members of CTN that have a 1.5 Mpbs T1 connection pay roughly $62.50 per month under the Rural Health Care program. If additional subsidies can’t be found, those same health providers will be paying approximately $200 per month for the same connectivity under the Healthcare Connect Fund.
benton.org/node/142383 | Government Technology
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SPEEDIER INTERNET RIVALS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Shalini Ramachandran]
Steady growth in broadband revenue has helped cable operators offset a stagnant pay-TV market in recent years. But now, the industry is resisting pressure from local governments, businesses and universities to offer ultrafast Internet service, opening the door to new competitors. Google and a host of smaller companies working in partnership with cities like Seattle and Urbana (IL) are building fiber-optic networks that offer speeds of a gigabit per second. That's more than three times as fast as the maximum speeds available to residential subscribers of major cable or phone companies. Other Internet services, such as Verizon's FiOS, which already bring fiber lines all the way to customers' premises, could be boosted to gigabit speeds relatively easily by upgrading the equipment in central offices and consumers' homes, experts say. Cable companies, meanwhile, are holding back. To offer the faster speeds across their service areas alongside other services like television, cable operators would have to spend billions more on their networks. Unlike fully fiber Internet service providers, cable companies typically run fiber to neighborhood "nodes." Less-efficient coaxial cables connect those nodes to what can be hundreds of subscribers, who effectively share bandwidth. About half the nation's cable systems would need more fiber before they could deliver gigabit speeds to all customers and continue offering television, says John Dahlquist, vice president of marketing for Aurora Networks Inc., a company that sells network infrastructure to both fiber and cable operators.
benton.org/node/142374 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SEEKING FASTER BROADBAND
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Shalini Ramachandran]
Red Wing (MN) is one of many city governments, schools, hospitals and local businesses that are pushing for ultrafast broadband networks. Partnerships such as U.S. Ignite, a group backed by the National Science Foundation, are leading the way to connect communities with researchers and designers creating high-bandwidth software in fields like education, public safety and health care. While cable executives say there aren't enough applications requiring gigabit-a-second speeds, many of these groups disagree. They argue, for example, that high speeds could support more-sophisticated severe-weather alert systems and allow high-quality, virtual doctor-patient consultations on a large scale.
benton.org/node/142373 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOOGLE’S SCREENWISE PANEL
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: David Streitfeld]
Google has hired a research company, GfK Custom Research, to send out old-fashioned letters seeking cooperation for its Screenwise Panel project, a tracking effort intended to help not only Google but “experts at universities” conduct “important research on trends in the way people use media.” Full-scale participation, the letter promises, will reap even more loot: $50 a month “or even more.” As usual with Google, it wants information to flow in only one direction: toward Google.
benton.org/node/142375 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

THE ARTS AND DIGITAL TECH
[SOURCE: Pew Internet and American Life Project, AUTHOR: Kristin Thomson, Kristen Purcell, Lee Rainie]
A survey of a wide-ranging mix of U.S.-based arts organizations shows that the internet, social media, and mobile connectivity now permeate their operations and have changed the way they stage performances, mount and showcase their exhibits, engage their audiences, sell tickets, and raise funds. These organizations are even finding that technology has changed the very definition of art: 77% of respondents agree with the statement that the internet has “played a major role in broadening the boundaries of what is considered art.” “For most of these organizations, technology suffuses their operations and their engagement activities with their communities,” noted Kristen Purcell, research director at the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, and a co-author of the report. “They are using the technologies to expand their offerings, grow and diversify their audiences, and bring technology users into the act of creating art itself.” Tied to this embrace of technology is a widespread sense among arts group leaders that digital technologies are critical to the spread of the arts:
81% of the organizations in this survey say the internet and digital technologies are “very important” for promoting the arts
78% say these technologies are “very important” for increasing audience engagement
50% “strongly agree” with the statement that the internet “has increased engagement in the arts by providing a public platform through which more people can share their work”
65% say digital technologies are “very important” for fundraising
A majority of these organizations also agree that the internet is “very important” in increasing organizational efficiency (63%), and for their engaging in arts advocacy (55%)
benton.org/node/142401 | Pew Internet and American Life Project
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

MANIPULATING YOUR SMARTPHONE
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Susan Crawford]
[Commentary] The two kinds of Internet-access carriers, wired and wireless, have found they can operate without competing with each other. The cable industry and AT&T- Verizon have divided up the world much as Comcast and Time Warner did; only instead of, “You take Philadelphia, I’ll take Minneapolis,” it’s, “You take wired, I’ll take wireless.” At the end of 2011, the two industries even agreed to market each other’s services. Comcast and Time Warner Cable will bundle Verizon Wireless services with their own, and by 2015 the cable companies will have the option of selling mobile services under their own brands. Both the wired and wireless Internet-access businesses are concentrated and highly profitable. AT&T and Verizon Wireless together control two-thirds of the wireless marketplace and generate 80 percent of its revenue, while enjoying profit margins of about 40 percent. Sprint and T-Mobile trail far behind, and the barriers to entry for any new national player are probably insurmountable. The major wireless carriers, like the major cable distributors, have enough market power to raise prices at will. Now, the communications industry is at a point of equipoise. Each of the major actors is too big for any of the others to swallow or crush. Profits are climbing, allowing the companies to pay ever-higher dividends. Cash is piling up; investment in infrastructure is down, because there is no competitive pressure to increase it. Increasingly, poor and rural people are being left behind or relegated to second-best wireless substitutes for high-speed Internet access. But those zippy iPad apps look just great.
benton.org/node/142369 | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top

OWNERSHIP

SMALLVILLE SETTLEMENT
[SOURCE: Hollywood Reporter, AUTHOR: Eriq Gardner]
Warner Brothers has settled a big part of a significant lawsuit that alleged the creators and executive producers of Smallville were cheated out of tens of millions of dollars through sweetheart license-fee deals that the studio made with its sister TV networks. Tollin/Robbins Productions submitted papers in Los Angeles Superior Court to dismiss its claims. The Tollin/Robbins lawsuit from Smallville showrunners Mike Tollin and Brian Robbins seeking more than $100 million in damages was filed in March 2010, about a year before the long-running show about Superman's earthly upbringing ended after 10 lucrative seasons on the air. The case touched upon a sensitive issue in Hollywood: so-called "vertical integration." The producers contended they were deprived of significant profits when WBTV allegedly undersold the series to affiliates the WB Network and then The CW instead of licensing the series to outside companies. Part of the case from Killara Productions, run by Smallville co-developer Miles Millar and Leonardtown Productions and operated by Alfred Gough, will continue.
benton.org/node/142382 | Hollywood Reporter
Recommend this Headline
back to top

FCC OKs LIBERTY-SIRIUSXM
[SOURCE: The Wrap, AUTHOR: ]
The Federal Communications Commission granted Liberty Media its approval to finish its takeover of SiriusXM. Liberty has been buying shares of the satellite radio company for the past few years. The transfer is expected to be complete within 60 days. Sirius has 23.4 million subscribers and rose to profitability in 2010 after more than 10 years of losses. Its radios are installed in about two-thirds of all new automobiles sold in the United States.
benton.org/node/142381 | Wrap, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

AL GORE AND CURRENT
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Brian Stelter]
Al Gore’s Current TV was never popular with viewers, but it was a hit where it counted: with cable and satellite providers. When he co-founded the channel in 2005, Gore managed to get the channel piped into tens of millions of households — a huge number for an untested network — through a combination of personal lobbying and arm-twisting of industry giants. He called on those skills again after deciding in December to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera for $500 million. To preserve the deal — and the estimated $100 million he would personally receive — he went to some of those same distributors, who were looking for an excuse to drop the low-rated channel, and reminded them that their contracts with Current TV called it a news channel. Were the distributors going to say that an American version of Al Jazeera didn’t qualify, possibly invoking ugly stereotypes of the Middle Eastern news giant? The deal completed an eight-year odyssey for Gore and for Current TV that confirmed one of the realities of show business: it can be a lot easier to profit from a channel than to come up with must-see TV for viewers.
benton.org/node/142406 | New York Times | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

BBG PROGRAMMING COMING TO THE US
[SOURCE: Broadcasting Board of Governors, AUTHOR: Press release]
The Broadcasting Board of Governors hailed a new law that updates one of the founding statutes of public diplomacy in the United States, a change that the Board has long supported and had incorporated into its strategic plan. The defense authorization bill that the President signed Jan 2 includes a provision that reduces restrictions on the dissemination of materials within the United States that were originally intended for audiences overseas. This means that news and information programs produced by BBG journalists for people in more than 100 countries can also be made available for broadcast within the United States; many already are available worldwide via the Internet. The provision was originally known as the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act when it was first introduced in Congress in 2010 and re-introduced last year. Presiding Governor Michael Lynton said the new law will allow the BBG to accept requests to provide its programs to organizations which, until now, it could not share them with, including U.S.-based broadcasters, publications, universities, non-governmental organizations, and others that have requested these materials over the years. The legislation updates the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, a section of which prohibited the State Department and U.S. international broadcasting from disseminating within this country any program materials that have been produced using funds appropriated for public diplomacy. A subsequent amendment to the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 prohibited using such funds to influence public opinion in the United States. These two provisions together are popularly known as Smith-Mundt, named after the primary Senate and House authors of the 1948 bill, who could not have anticipated the advent of the World Wide Web or dramatic shifts in the population of the United States, including large communities of people from other countries seeking information via a variety of media in their native languages.
benton.org/node/142363 | Broadcasting Board of Governors
Recommend this Headline
back to top

OPEN DATA FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
[SOURCE: The White House, AUTHOR: Rajiv Shah, Todd Park]
A remarkable new tool is becoming increasingly available to help end extreme poverty and ensure dignity and opportunity for people around the world—a tool that few people think about when they consider how to bolster international development efforts. That tool is data, and in particular “open data“—data freely available in formats that are easy to use in new and innovative ways, while rigorously protecting privacy. The possibilities are truly endless—it could be regional epidemiological statistics being made available to community health workers; or real-time weather information being made available to small-holder farmers; or loan information being made accessible to first-time borrowers. In these and countless other arenas, open data has the potential to not only improve transparency and coordination, but also dramatically accelerate progress in development. In order to explore new ways of leveraging open data for development and to help strengthen our commitment to open data with others inside and outside of government, we joined with colleagues from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 10 for a DataJam at the White House. This unprecedented event brought world-class innovators and entrepreneurs together with U.S. government leaders and decision-makers to discuss the impact that open development data has already had on strengthening entrepreneurship in the United States and in developing countries—and the additional impact that can be had going forward.
benton.org/node/142365 | White House, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SATELLITE EXPORT
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: William Broad]
To the delight of American satellite makers, communications satellites — which orbit Earth to relay phone calls, link ships to shore and broadcast television programs — will become legal for civilian export under legislation that President Obama signed into law. Although the United States founded the industry, manufacturers were forced to pull back from international markets after a 1999 law categorized the satellites as weapons and restricted their export. At the time, Congress was fearful that selling satellites abroad could allow technology secrets to fall into the wrong hands. The defense bill that President Obama signed will undo that step and let American companies sell communications satellites as civilian technology rather than as deadly arms. Among the beneficiaries will be companies like Boeing, Hughes and Space Systems/Loral.
benton.org/node/142407 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

POLICYMAKERS

SPEAKER BOEHNER
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Pete Kasperowicz]
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was reelected Speaker of the House after a week of rumors of a possible GOP revolt. Speaker Boehner won a bare majority in a vote that saw nine Republicans vote for other GOP members, and several others who abstained from voting or voted "present." Two years ago, Speaker Boehner won all 241 available GOP votes. In a vote that opened the 113th Congress, Speaker Boehner received 220 votes, compared to 192 for Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the minority leader. Fourteen members voted for other candidates or present. Speaker Boehner needed 218 votes to win reelection. Defectors from Boehner included Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted for Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho). Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) and two freshmen, Reps. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) and Ted Yoho (R-FL), all voted for Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), but Rep Cantor himself voted for Rep Boehner. Reps. Paul Broun (R-GA) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX) voted for outgoing member Allen West (R-FL). Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) voted for former Comptroller General David Walker. Speakers of the House do not have to be members of the House, although historically they all have been.
benton.org/node/142376 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Jennifer Martinez]
Senate Republicans added five new members to its roster on the influential Commerce Committee. Sens. Dan Coats (R-IN), Tim Scott (R-SC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Deb Fischer (R-NB) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) have joined the Commerce Committee for the 113th Congress. The committee has jurisdiction over matters dealing with communications, technology research and development and transportation, among other issues. Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), John Boozman (R-AR) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) will not return to the Commerce Committee.
In addition, Sen Cruz will join his freshman colleague Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on the Senate Judiciary Committee after Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) retired at the end of the session. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) will not be returning to the panel.
benton.org/node/142385 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top