April 2013

CYBERSECURITY

CISPA ADVANCES
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Jennifer Martinez]
The House Intelligence Committee passed a controversial cybersecurity bill on an 18-2 vote. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, known as CISPA, is expected to be voted on in the House next week with a set of other cybersecurity-focused bills. House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), the authors of the bill, expressed optimism that the markup vote signaled they have enough momentum to pass CISPA through the House, as it did last year. A set of six amendments backed by Reps Rogers and Ruppersberger were incorporated into the bill during the markup. Among the approved changes, the bill would require the government to strip personal information from the cyber threat data they receive from companies. The Intelligence panel also agreed to strike a provision from the bill that would allow the government to broadly use the information for "national security purposes.' Many of the amendments were aimed at allaying the concerns of privacy groups and the White House. So far, the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy and Technology and other privacy advocates are not won over by the changes. The panel also approved language stating that the bill would not allow companies to "hack back" against other entities that have stolen trade secrets or other proprietary information from them. Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) both voted against the bill during the markup. Amendments offered by the two lawmakers, which were backed by privacy groups, were not agreed to.
benton.org/node/149378 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

INTERNET FREEDOM BILL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The House Communications Subcommittee began its two-day markup of a bill that would make U.S. support of a multistakeholder model of Internet governance the law of the land, rather than just the sense of the Congress, but lacking the unanimous support that was given last session's bipartisan resolution. Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) has no problem with turning resolution language into law, while the ranking Democrats on the full committee and subcommittee say there would be unintended consequences to the language which they hope to fix with amendments to the bill. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who said he could not support the bill, said that he was concerned that the bill was a back-door attempt to undermine the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules and ability to manage the IP transition. He also said bill proponents refused to include a "savings" clause in the bill that would make clear the FCC's authority was preserved. Ranking Subcommittee Member Anna Eshoo (D-CA) said that she could not support the bill as currently drafted for that reason. "[I]t is with deep disappointment that I have to express my opposition to the legislation being considered before the Subcommittee today," Rep Eshoo said. She did not suggest the bill could not be fixed, and in fact will propose specific amendments to tweak it in the hopes that it, too, could be bipartisan. But she has several problems with the "government control" language. "Last Congress, our bipartisan work together resulted in the unanimous passage of a Sense of Congress aimed prospectively at the WCIT conference in Dubai," she said. That resolution, she added, "demonstrated our unwavering support for the Internet's multi-stakeholder model and avoided any complications that could develop as a result of placing a formal Policy Statement in statute." She says a number of agencies -- the FCC, State Department, NTIA and the Department of Justice -- have expressed concern that a policy statement turned into statute "could unintentionally impact ongoing or future agency litigation, or undermine Administration flexibility in conducting foreign policy.
benton.org/node/149371 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

KEEPING THE INTERNET FREE FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROL
[SOURCE: Bend Bulletin, AUTHOR: Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR)]
[Commentary] The Internet is under attack by nations that want to plunder its riches and control the flow of information. No, I’m not referring to the latest state-sponsored cyber-attack. I’m talking about a concerted international effort — out of the view of most Americans — to drag the Internet within the purview of regulatory bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union, a UN agency. Under the current “multi-stakeholder" governance model, non-regulatory institutions manage and operate the Internet by developing best practices with public and private sector input across the globe. The structure of the Internet and the content and applications it carries are organized from the ground up, not handed down by governments. This allows the Internet to evolve quickly, to meet the diverse needs of users around the world, and to keep governmental or non-governmental actors from controlling the design and operation of the network or the content it carries. Governments’ hands-off approach has enabled the Internet to grow at an astonishing pace and become perhaps the most powerful engine of social and economic freedom and job creation the world has ever known. I am introducing legislation elevating language from a resolution opposing proposals in a particular treaty to a permanent statement of U.S. policy. The congressional subcommittee on communications and technology that I chair will consider it. By strengthening last year’s legislation, Congress will demonstrate its commitment to Internet freedom and push back on those nations that might subvert the Internet for their own purposes. Last year, Congress “talked the talk" and passed a resolution defending a global Internet free from government control. This year, Congress must “walk the walk" and make it official U.S. policy. Since this is a principle that we’ve already unanimously said we believe in, there is no downside to stating so plainly in U.S. law. I urge my colleagues to continue the bipartisan cooperation the House and Senate showed last year and affirm that the Internet is too important to the world to be overrun by governments.
benton.org/node/149324 | Bend Bulletin
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INTERNET FREEDOM BILL
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] The House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is marking up of the so-called “Internet Freedom Bill.” We’re still on about that whole “the ITU will take control of the Internet and black helicopters will come for our servers” thing. Unfortunately, as keeps happening with this, it looks like some folks want to hijack what should be a show of unity to promote their own partisan domestic agenda. Specifically, does the bill as worded undercut (by accident or design) the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to do things like Network Neutrality? The concern arises from the very broad language of the proposed bill that “It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control.” The argument being that (a) unlike the almost identical non-binding almost identical to the [non-binding resolution] Congress passed last fall before the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), making this an actual law will apply to domestic policy and not just foreign policy; and (b) net neutrality constitutes “government control” of the Internet; (c) making this law transformed it from a non-binding ‘sense of Congress’ to not merely binding, but retroactively repealing any contrary statute or regulation by implication; so that, (d) the statute would affect an implied repeal of the FCC’s rules (and presumably any other regulation relating to the Internet).
benton.org/node/149369 | Public Knowledge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

IS GOOGLE FIBER TOO EXPENSIVE FOR YOUR CITY
[SOURCE: The Atlantic, AUTHOR: Rebecca Greenfield]
If you're not jealous of Austin, which officially became the second lucky city to get access to Google Fiber — the search giant's experimental, superfast, surprisingly cheap fiber optic Internet infrastructure — you should be, because it's unlikely that your city will ever get the coveted connection service of the future. By mid-next year Austin residents will begin to have Internet access that Google claims runs 100 times faster than the average broadband connection, for "roughly similar" prices to Google's first Fiber test case, Kansas City, a city where Internet bills run a very reasonable $70 per month but which provides a cautionary tale for the expensive realities of Google's project. So how much longer until the rest of us join the revolution? Well, we might have to wait forever. Google CEO Larry Page has previously mentioned vague expansion plans for Fiber during earnings calls, calling it a "good business" and not just a "hobby." But it's very unlikely that Fiber will see a country wide release. Most importantly, installing fiber optic cable is expensive — just laying down Fiber in Kansas City cost $84 million for 149,000 homes... and that was before even connecting the cables to the houses. One estimate pegs "nationwide deployment" at $140 billion, which would wipe out even Apple's big pile of cash reserves. Just another 20 million homes would cost $11 billion, according to other research. Of course, that still leaves hope for certain parts of the country. But Kansas City met certain specifications that other cities might not.
benton.org/node/149332 | Atlantic, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOOGLE FIBER LAGS BEHIND CABLE
[SOURCE: Minyanville, AUTHOR: Mike Schuster]
[Commentary] While Austin and Kansas City will benefit from the increased competition from Google Fiber -- which actually prompted Time Warner Cable to literally knock on people's doors begging them not to switch -- the rest of the US and its 315 million citizens are still stuck with limited options. In many cases, zero. As we eagerly await Google Fiber's rollout to extend onto our turf, telcos are still sitting pretty with their uncompetitive rates and speeds. And as Sanford Bernstein senior analyst Carlos Kirjner wrote, the company could spend $11 billion on hookups and still only reach roughly 20 million homes or 15% of the country. Anything outside those subscribers would have "limited impact." "We remain skeptical that Google will find a scalable and economically feasible model to extend its build-out to a large portion of the US, as costs would be substantial, regulatory, and competitive barriers material," Kirjner wrote in a research note. It's wishful thinking to expect Google Fiber or live TV streaming service Aereo to, in a matter of months, completely upend decades of unregulated growth and hundreds of billions in government lobbying. Right now, the two upstarts are certainly on the telcoms' radar, but they're pesky mosquitos compared to the lumbering behemoth of cable providers.
benton.org/node/149321 | Minyanville
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BUDGET

FCC BUDGET
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: ]
The Federal Communications Commission is requesting a budget of $359,299,000 to carry out the FCC’s functions and meet the expectations of Congress. The FCC’s FY 2014 budget submission includes requests for funding to: (1) support Commissionwide information technology needs through extending the enterprise storage; (2) support for reform of the Universal Service Fund Support Program; (3) space consolidation and facilities improvement that will reduce lease arrangements that are not cost effective and improve efficiencies; (4) create a Do-Not-Call registry for telephone numbers used by Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs); (5) provide resources for mission-critical systems to ensure that they are operational during a Continuity of Operations (COOP) event; and (6) provide contract funding to support mandatory audits for the Office of the Inspector General. In furtherance of these objectives and the FCC’s mission, the FY 2014 budget request will be used to support the following Strategic Goals:
Strategic Goal 1: Connect America: Maximize Americans’ access to – and the adoption of—affordable fixed and mobile broadband where they live, work, and travel.
Strategic Goal 2: Maximize Benefits of Spectrum: Maximize the overall benefits of spectrum for the United States.
Strategic Goal 3: Protect and Empower Consumers: Empower consumers by ensuring that they have the tools and information they need to make informed choices; protect consumers from harm in the communications market.
Strategic Goal 4: Promote Innovation, Investment, and America’s Global Competitiveness: Promote innovation in a manner that improves the nation’s ability to compete in the global economy, creating a virtuous circle that results in more investment and in turn enables additional innovation.
Strategic Goal 5: Promote Competition: Ensure a competitive market for communications and media services to foster innovation, investment, and job creation and to ensure consumers have meaningful choice in affordable
services.
Strategic Goal 6: Public Safety and Homeland Security: Promote the availability of reliable, interoperable, redundant, rapidly restorable critical communications infrastructures that are supportive of all required services.
Strategic Goal 7: Advance Key National Purposes: Through international and national interagency efforts, advance the use of broadband for key national purposes.
Strategic Goal 8: Operational Excellence: Make the FCC a model for excellence in government by effectively managing the Commission’s human, information, and financial resources; by making decisions based on sound data and analyses; and by maintaining a commitment to transparent and responsive processes that encourage public involvement and best serve the public interest.
benton.org/node/149367 | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMMERCE BUDGET
[SOURCE: Department of Commerce, AUTHOR: Press release]
Deputy Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank today released the Department of Commerce’s fiscal year 2014 budget request, which supports President Obama’s plan for an economy built to last with crucial investments in advanced manufacturing, innovation, trade promotion and enforcement, and research and development. These investments are designed to help grow the economy, create jobs and strengthen the middle class. The $8.6 billion budget request is an increase of $1 billion over the fiscal year 2012 level. The Department also identified a total of $195 million in administrative savings. The FY 2014 Department of Commerce budget includes key investments in the following areas:
Spurring U.S. Innovation: The budget provides full spending authority for the $3.1 billion the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) expects to receive in fees in FY14. This will support the protection of intellectual property that is crucial to innovation and economic growth. The budget also includes $141 million to support NIST laboratories’ work in advanced manufacturing and materials science.
Protecting the Nation’s cyber infrastructure: An increase of $15 million to enable NIST to strengthen its core cybersecurity research and development programs, which help protect our nation’s infrastructure and economy from growing threats.
Informing the Nation: $154.2 million increase to the U.S. Census Bureau to fund research and testing to improve the design and administration of the 2020 Census and $4 million for the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to improve overall coverage and measurement of Foreign Direct Investment, which will improve the ability of communities to plan for new inbound investment.
Enhancing public safety: $2 billion for NOAA’s satellites systems, which are critical to its ability to provide accurate weather forecasts and warnings that help protect lives and property.
Increasing wireless access: $52 million to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to improve telecommunications performance, optimize Federal agencies’ use of spectrum for radars and satellites, and increase broadband access to communities nationwide.
benton.org/node/149366 | Department of Commerce
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELECOM

OBAMA PHONES
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Karen Tumulty]
“Obama phone” is the widely used — and misleading — nickname of a 28-year-old federal program known as Lifeline. It provides discounts, averaging $9.25 a month, on phone service for 13.3 million low-income subscribers. In the 3 1/2 years after false rumors started that the Obama administration was giving free cellphones to poor people — and six months after a racially charged video about it went viral — a once-obscure phone service subsidy is getting renewed scrutiny on Capitol Hill. There are growing calls in Congress to end or drastically cut back Lifeline; later this month, the House Commerce Committee will hold a hearing that could help determine its fate. “The program has nearly tripled in size from $800 million in 2009 to $2.2 billion per year in 2012,” the senior Republicans on the Commerce Committee wrote in a March 26 letter to the Democratic minority. “American taxpayers — and we as their elected representatives — need to know how much of this growth is because of waste, fraud and abuse.” In Obama’s first term, amid evidence of widespread fraud, the Federal Communications Commission moved to crack down on the program, saving what it predicts will be $400 million this year, on top of $214 million in 2012. But in the view of many conservatives, the “Obama phone” has become Exhibit A in the case against a liberal president who they believe is doling out goodies to make people more dependent on government.
benton.org/node/149354 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION

BROADCASTERS AND SPECTRUM
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: John Bergmayer]
[Commentary] The fantastically-mustachioed Chase Carey of News Corp. has gotten quite a bit of support in the broadcast community for his "threat" to shut down Fox's over-the-air signals. Fox, CBS, Univision and others have said if they're not able to make antenna-rental services like Aereo illegal, then they'll simply convert to some sort of vaguely-specified "subscription model" where, presumably, rooftop and remote antennas would not be able to pick up their programming. But I'm not sure that the support and applause directed his way from some circles is quite as welcome. Mike Masnick's reaction was typical of the tech-literate crowds I run in. He writes, “No networks are stupid enough to shut down over this, and if they are, good riddance. Put that spectrum to better use.” Chase Carey and his supporters may have thought they were taking a tough stand in their threat to shut down their broadcast operations. But in reality they've simply laid bare the increasing anachronism of their business model, and they've shown a dismissive attitude toward the public they are supposed to serve. Broadcasters need to make sure they continue to serve the public interest by providing free, high-quality programming on the airwaves that the American people have entrusted to them. If they get bored of doing this that's their right, but they shouldn't expect to continue squatting on the public's airwaves when there are so many other things that could be done with them.
benton.org/node/149331 | Public Knowledge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRELESS

METROPCS DEAL
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Archibald Preuschat, Thomas Gryta]
Deutsche Telekom submitted what it called its "best and final offer" to MetroPCS. The revised terms lower the amount of debt that will be transferred to the new company by $3.8 billion and cut the interest rate on that debt by half a percentage point. Deutsche Telekom also agreed to hold on to its shares in the new company for at least 18 months after the deal closes. The remaining terms of the deal remain unchanged. MetroPCS shareholders still stand to get about $4 a share in cash and a 26% stake in the combined company. Lowering the debt load increases the value of that equity stake. MetroPCS will push its shareholder meeting back to April 24 to give investors time to consider the new terms.
benton.org/node/149403 | Wall Street Journal | FT | AP | Bloomberg
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

JOURNALISM

DATA RELEASES PROBE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: ]
Federal law-enforcement authorities have reversed course and revived an insider-trading probe into how media companies transmit government data to investors, according to people familiar with the matter. The decision came after The Wall Street Journal in January disclosed the probe and reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was planning to wind down the investigation because it was having trouble proving wrongdoing. The FBI, which was conducting the probe with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was also frustrated that another agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, hadn't provided data sought by investigators. The CFTC has since agreed to provide both trading data and analysis to further the investigation, according to officials familiar with the probe. Among the media companies under scrutiny are Bloomberg LP, Thomson Reuters and the Dow Jones & Co. unit of News Corp., the leading electronic providers of federal economic data to traders. A number of smaller media operations that cover such data releases have also come under scrutiny. Among the major media firms, the people said, Bloomberg has received the most attention in the probe.
benton.org/node/149401 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

LOBBYING

FWD.us
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Mark Zuckerberg]
[Commentary] I am proud to announce FWD.us, a new organization founded by leaders of our nation’s technology community to focus on immigration and education reform and advocate a bipartisan policy agenda to build the knowledge economy the United States needs to ensure more jobs, innovation and investment. These leaders, who reflect the breadth and depth of Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial culture, include Reid Hoffman, Eric Schmidt, Marissa Mayer, Drew Houston, Ron Conway, Chamath Palihapitiya, Joe Green, Jim Breyer, Matt Cohler, John Doerr, Paul Graham, Mary Meeker, Max Levchin, Aditya Agarwal and Ruchi Sanghvi. As leaders of an industry that has benefited from this economic shift, we believe that we have a responsibility to work together to ensure that all members of our society gain from the rewards of the modern knowledge economy. We will work with members of Congress from both parties, the administration and state and local officials. We will use online and offline advocacy tools to build support for policy changes, and we will strongly support those willing to take the tough stands necessary to promote these policies in Washington. Across America, creative, hardworking people in coffee shops, dorm rooms and garages are creating the next era of growth. Let’s embrace our future as a knowledge economy and help them — and all of us — reach our full potential. [Zuckerberg is founder and chief executive of Facebook and co-founder of Fwd.us]
benton.org/node/149406 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

POLICYMAKERS

PHIL WEISER Q&A
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Cecilia Kang]
A Q&A with Phil Weiser -- a former senior adviser for Obama on technology and innovation, and current dean of the University of Colorado’s law school. He views the nomination of the next chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission as an opportunity to rethink the role of the FCC and how it could oversee the massive and expanding telecom and Internet broadband market. He sees freeing up spectrum — not only for consumers — but also for machine-to-machine communications as one of the FCC’s top priorities. On the phone-to-broadband transition, he says, “All current policy is built on the use of legacy technology and thus the transition away from it is major challenge for the FCC. Rather than necessarily attempt to simply transfer all legacy policy into the IP work, the FCC will need to ask ‘What policy regimes and policy goals are important?’”
benton.org/node/149407 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

April 2013

“Mobile” computing no longer exists

Data Science: The Numbers of Our Lives

April 11, 2013 (#cispa advances in House)

The FCC faces questions and challenges as it awaits a new chairman

The keys to a knowledge economy

Deutsche Telekom Sweetens Offer for MetroPCS

A Probe on Data Releases Is Revived

Insecurity in cyberspace

Television set for a revolution

Want to Opt Out of Targeted Mobile Ads? There's an App for That