September 10, 2013 (What Happened At The Net Neutrality Oral Argument?)
BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 (Happy 14th Birthday, Cassidy)
Talking TV on Capitol Hill (see preview below) http://benton.org/calendar/2013-09-10/
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Google, Facebook ask FISA for permission to release information on government requests
The Border Is a Back Door for U.S. Device Searches
Government's Ad Campaign Convinced 100,000 Smokers to Kick the Habit [links to web]
INTERNET/BROADBAND
What Happened At The Net Neutrality Oral Argument - analysis
Judges Hear Arguments on Rules for Internet
Lawyer: Verizon should be able to block websites
NCTA: We Won't Block Court Decision on FCC's Open Internet Order
Telecoms Use Astroturf Lobby Against Network Neutrality - op-ed [links to web]
Can this mockumentary make the public care about Network Neutrality?
TELEVISION
The Big Advertising, Media and Tech Issues Facing Congress
Rep Eshoo Issues Retransmission Bill Draft
Dish's Dodge Proposes Distant Signal Retransmission Alternative [links to web]
MLB Asks Congress to Get Rid of Compulsory Licenses [links to web]
NAB: Time to Ditch Distant Signal License [links to web]
Cable Seeks Channel Substitution in Retransmission [links to web]
NAB Breaks Out Tin Foil Hats in Retransmission Fight - op-ed
Why I cut the cable cord and you probably shouldn't - analysis [links to web]
Online TV Public Inspection File Update: A New Political Reporting Approach Proposed - editorial
Shouldn't War Critics Get a Broadcast Response to the President's War Speech? - op-ed
Samsung Scores FCC Waiver For Retail-Focused CableCARD Device [links to web]
WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
Report: Carriers Deployed More Than 7 Million Wi-Fi Access Points [links to web]
Wireless USB to get high-speed jolt from WiGig [links to web]
Verizon Plans Largest Debt Sale Ever [links to web]
PRIVACY
Will Transparency Help Big Data Face Down Its Critics?
FTC Seeks Public Comment on Imperium, LLC, Proposal for Parental Verification Method Under COPPA Rule - press release [links to web]
TELECOM
Statement From Acting FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn On Lifeline Awareness Week - press release
CONTENT
Mapping the 'Geography' of the Internet [links to web]
Our dream library: Unlimited e-books for less than $10 a month - analysis [links to web]
Facebook offers real-time feed of user data to online and TV news [links to web]
EDUCATION
Udacity teams up with Google, AT&T and other tech giants for Open Education Alliance [links to web]
Nominate a Connected Educator as a White House Champion of Change - press release [links to web]
$1.9 Million in Grants Awarded to Help Individuals With Disabilities Purchase Assistive Technology - press release [links to web]
POLICYMAKERS
Cowboy of the NSA
David B. Robbins Rejoins FTC as Executive Director - press release [links to web]
Spotlight on NTIA: Suzanne Radell, senior policy adviser, Office of International Affairs - press release [links to web]
LOBBYING
Telecoms Use Astroturf Lobby Against Network Neutrality - op-ed [links to web]
Telecoms Use Astroturf Lobby Against Network Neutrality - op-ed [links to web]
STORIES FROM ABROAD
China Tightens Grip on Social Media
Rivals want to review new Google concessions in EU antitrust probe [links to web]
EU Wants More Concessions From Samsung in Patent-Abuse Case [links to web]
MORE ONLINE
Expanding Federal Telework Could Save $12 Billion a Year [links to web]
NY Times Editor Joins Yahoo News as Editor in Chief [links to web]
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
GOOGLE, FACEBOOK ASK FISA FOR PERMISSION TO RELEASE INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT REQUESTS
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Hayley Tsukayama]
Google and Facebook said that they, along with other tech firms, have submitted an amended petition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asking for permission to publish more information about the requests they receive from the government. Several companies have asked the surveillance court to allow them to release more information about these requests in an effort to increase transparency and trust with their users in the wake of revelations about surveillance programs conducted by the National Security Agency. Google said that it’s asking for permission to publish “detailed statistics about the types (if any) of national security requests” it receives under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch said that while the government has allowed companies such as Facebook to disclose some information about requests it receives from the government, the ability to be more specific would allow it to ease consumer concerns.
benton.org/node/158452 | Washington Post | Yahoo | LA Times | WSJ | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
DEVICE SEARCHES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Susan Stellin]
Newly released documents reveal how the government uses border crossings to seize and examine travelers’ electronic devices instead of obtaining a search warrant to gain access to the data. The documents detail what until now has been a largely secretive process that enables the government to create a travel alert for a person, who may not be a suspect in an investigation, then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying. To critics, the documents show how the government can avert Americans’ constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, but the confiscations have largely been allowed by courts as a tool to battle illegal activities like drug smuggling, child pornography and terrorism.
benton.org/node/159053 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
INTERNET/BROADBAND
WHAT HAPPENED AT NETWORK NEUTRALITY HEARING
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] Verizon and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had an oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court debating the network neutrality rules. The argument took place before Judge Rogers, Judge Tatel, and Senior Judge Silberman. Short version: three judges, three opinions. Judge Rogers seemed most likely to affirm the FCC and the rule. Judge Tatel wanted to eliminate the non-discrimination rule but keep the no blocking rule. Judge Silberman wanted to get rid of both the no blocking rule and the no discrimination rule – although would be happy to get rid of all the rules because the FCC did not make an explicit finding of “market power.” All three judges seemed comfortable with the idea that Congress has delegated the FCC authority to do some kind of regulation of broadband access under some set of circumstances, although Judge Silberman was not happy that the FCC did not make an explicit finding of “market power” (even if everyone agreed the point of the rule is that, market power or not, Verizon is a potential bottleneck). No one else wanted to play amateur economist with Judge Silberman, so the court seems likely to affirm the FCC’s overall authority to regulate broadband access providers to promote broadband deployment.
The panel then moved on to this question: assuming the FCC has general authority to make some kind of rule under some conditions, does something prevent the FCC from adopting these particular rules? There were two basic arguments. First, Verizon argued it had a first amendment right to block content on its network. This got some modest attention from Judge Silberman; but, again, neither of the other judges seemed interested. Verizon’s other argument, that the statute prevents the FCC from regulating it as a “common carrier” when it provides broadband service, got the bulk of the attention. The three judges now have to come to a decision where at least two of the three of them agree on a result. That could take some time, and they have no deadline for when to decide.
benton.org/node/159057 | Public Knowledge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
JUDGES HEAR NETWORK NEUTRALITY ARGUMENTS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Edward Wyatt]
In a momentous battle over whether the Web should remain free and open, members of a federal appeals court expressed doubt over a government requirement that Internet service providers treat all traffic equally. The Federal Communications Commission and Verizon, one of the largest Internet service providers, squared off in a two-hour session of oral arguments — three times as long as was scheduled. As Verizon pushed for the authority to manage its own pipes, the government argued that creators of legal content should have equal access to Internet users, lest big players gain an unfair advantage. But two judges appeared deeply skeptical that the FCC had the authority to regulate the Internet in that manner. The two jurists, Judge Laurence H. Silberman and Judge David S. Tatel, said that the agency’s anti-discrimination rule — which requires an Internet service provider to give all traffic that travels through its pipes the same priority — illegally imposed rules meant for telephones on the infrastructure of the Web. The FCC itself disallowed the telephone-type regulation a decade ago. The third judge, Judith W. Rogers, did not ask as many questions but appeared to accept much of the FCC’s position. The Wall Street Journal reports that by the end of the hearing, however, the question appeared to be whether the FCC's Open Internet Rules would be invalidated in their entirety, or whether only some of them would be thrown out.
benton.org/node/159056 | New York Times | Wall Street Journal | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
LAWYER: VERIZON SHOULD BE ABLE TO BLOCK WEBSITES
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Grant Gross]
Verizon Communications should be able to block its broadband customers from going to websites that refuse to pay the provider to deliver their traffic, a lawyer for Verizon told an appeals court. Current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic go beyond the agency's authority granted by the Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker told judges in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Verizon is appealing FCC network neutrality rules passed in December 2010. Lawyers for the FCC and a coalition of groups that filed briefs supporting the rules faced a skeptical panel of judges. Judge David Tatel repeatedly asked lawyers for both sides if the court could uphold the FCC's antiblocking rule, preventing broadband providers from totally blocking their customers from going to some websites, while rejecting the agency's antidiscrimination rule, preventing broadband providers from giving some Web traffic preferential treatment. Sean Lev, general counsel at the FCC, rejected Verizon's claim that the network neutrality rules violate its First Amendment free speech rights. Verizon is free to publish its own websites, but it isn't acting as a speaker when carrying customers' traffic, he said. When Judge Tatel asked why Verizon, acting as a consumer broadband provider, should deliver service to websites for free, Lev said those websites pay their own broadband fees. The websites are "not requesting service from Verizon," he said.
benton.org/node/158453 | IDG News Service | The Hill | Broadcasting&Cable | The Wrap | CommLawBlog
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
NCTA: WE WON'T BLOCK COURT DECISION ON FCC'S OPEN INTERNET ORDER
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
There was swift and extensive reaction to oral argument in Verizon's challenge to the Federal Communication Commission's Open Internet order, including a promise from cable operators that whatever happens to the FCC's regulations, they will keep providing fast Internet and will not block access to lawful content, applications and services. In an unsigned blog posting, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) said: "[N]o matter how the case comes out, cable broadband customers should have confidence that they will continue to enjoy the same fast and open Internet experience that millions of Americans cherish every day." Court watchers were giving fairly long odds that the FCC's rules would remain entirely intact, but NCTA said that even without those rules, "broadband providers would retain a strong incentive to ensure that consumers have the high-speed connections they need to access these offerings." And if there are bad actors, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have the authority to police them. "Thus, even if the FCC loses the case and its rules are overturned, one thing that will not change is consumers’ access to an open, growing and vibrant Internet," said NCTA.
benton.org/node/158562 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
CAN THIS MOCKUMENTARY MAKE THE PUBLIC CARE ABOUT NETWORK NEUTRALITY?
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Andrea Peterson]
A Q&A with filmmaker Gena Konstantinakos . A coalition of over a dozen organizations, including Free Press, Public Knowledge, ColorOfChange, Center for Media Justice, and Future of Music Coalition are joining to launch a “leaked” mockumentary about Network Neutrality to coincide with the opening arguments in Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission called “The Internet Must Go.” The mockumentary is a short film that tells the story of John Wooley who is a market researcher who has been dispatched to help the big Internet service providers sell their vision of a faster, cleaner Internet. He embarks on this journey earnestly, though misguidedly, believing that he’s doing something great, and he’s finally doing an important job. Over the course of his journey he meets with some really brilliant people, and one by one they help him to understand why his mission is really pretty misguided. Then he ventures to North Carolina where interacts with people who live in communities that are stifled by a lack of broadband altogether and who have attempted to build community broadband. And that’s ultimately where he has a change of heart. The film is 29 minutes and 59 seconds, which is what I hope is a very clickable length, and we’re releasing it for free on the Internet to coincide with the oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC.
benton.org/node/158441 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
TELEVISION
THE BIG ADVERTISING, MEDIA AND TECH ISSUES FACING CONGRESS
[SOURCE: AdWeek, AUTHOR: Katy Bachman]
It’s more bark than bite. Despite the CBS blackout on Time Warner Cable, there’s little appetite in Congress to do anything about retransmission. Time Warner and Dish are trying to convince lawmakers to tack reform onto the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, which Congress must move on before the end of 2014. More noise is expected in September at the House communications and technology subcommittee hearing on the expiring act. On Sept 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Verizon Wireless v. FCC, a case that has profound implications for future Internet policy–whether the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet by imposing rules that prohibit online service providers from blocking or slowing down legal content from competitors. The FCC admittedly lacks authority even though acting chair Mignon Clyburn said she was “ready to consider appropriate action.” Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), chairman of the commerce, manufacturing and trade subcommittee, is just getting started, forming a working group to examine privacy issues.
benton.org/node/158557 | AdWeek
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
ESHOO ISSUES RETRANSMISSION BILL DRAFT
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) released a draft of retransmission consent legislation in advance of a hearing dealing with that and other video regulation issues. The bill, The Video CHOICE (Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment), is intended to eliminate TV blackouts caused by retransmission consent disputes. The bill: 1) Gives the FCC explicit statutory authority to grant interim carriage of a television broadcast station during a retransmission consent negotiation impasse. 2) Ensures that a consumer can purchase cable television service without subscribing to the broadcast stations electing retransmission consent. 3) Prohibits a television broadcast station engaged in a retransmission consent negotiations from making their owned or affiliated cable programming a condition for receiving broadcast programming. 4) Instructs the FCC to examine whether the blocking of a television broadcast station's owned or affiliated online content during a retransmission consent negotiation constitutes a failure to negotiate in "good faith." 5) Calls for an FCC study of programming costs for regional and national sports networks in the top 20 regional sports markets. National Association of Broadcasters President Gordon Smith said that a new draft retransmission consent bill could "embolden pay-TV giants," to "game the system." The former senator said he had "Great personal affection" for Eshoo, but was surprised that the bill was slanted toward distributors and strongly opposes it. The bill, which was circulated in advance of a hearing on video regulation, would allow the FCC to grant cable and satellite operators interim carriage during retransmission impasses, would not require cable operators to offer retransmission stations as must-buys in basic service.
benton.org/node/158543 | Broadcasting&Cable | B&C | Telecompetitor | AdWeek
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
NAB AND RETRANSMISSION
[SOURCE: TVNewsCheck, AUTHOR: Brian Frederick]
[Commentary] The National Association of Broadcasters is currently trying to convince everyone that a few pay TV companies are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to cause blackouts in order to move Congress to change retransmission consent. The NAB claims that 89% of blackouts in the last two years have involved DirecTV, Dish Network and Time Warner Cable and if only those companies would work a little harder to reach resolutions with the broadcasters, there wouldn't be any blackouts. The NAB's charges are ludicrous, as anyone with even a basic understanding of how business works can attest. There is nothing more frustrating for TV consumers than blackouts so it's absurd to think that pay TV distributors would intentionally upset their customers and risk losing them. Truth is that there aren't just three companies that are justifiably calling for retrans reform. There are numerous cable, satellite and telecom companies. So the NAB can float absurd conspiracy theories and try to distract everyone from the hard truth: the retrans system is truly broken and it is now simply subsidizing expensive network programming. (Perhaps Congress should ask the broadcasters to open their books as a condition of that free spectrum.)
[Frederick is VP of public affairs at Porter Novelli, a public relations firm retained by the American Television Alliance, which is a coalition of pay TV distributors, consumer groups and independent programmers]
benton.org/node/159054 | TVNewsCheck
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
ONLINE TV PUBLIC INSPECTION FILE UPDATE: A NEW POLITICAL REPORTING APPROACH PROPOSED
[SOURCE: CommLawBlog, AUTHOR: ]
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission had asked for comments on whether or not to extend the political file component of the online public inspection file requirement to all TV stations. When the online public file system was first put into place in 2012, only Big Four network affiliates in the Top 50 markets were required to upload their political file materials. Now, public interest groups (the Public Interest Airwaves Coalition (PIPAC), the Sunlight Foundation, and the Center for Effective Government) are suggesting a Federal Election Commission-like reporting system for TV stations. They are urging the FCC not only to extend the requirement to all commercial TV stations, but also to institute an entirely new online filing format for political materials. If the proposed online filing system really would make everybody’s life easier, it would be good for the FCC to know that. But if the proposed system would impose considerable additional burdens – and, frankly, we suspect it would, but again, we don’t have a lot of first-hand experience here – the Commission should know that, too.
benton.org/node/158430 | CommLawBlog
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
SHOULDN'T WAR CRITICS GET A BROADCAST RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S WAR SPEECH?
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Robert Naiman]
[Commentary] President Barack Obama will address the nation to lobby public opinion and Congress to support the Congressional authorization for war in Syria. Shouldn't broadcast media respect the right of war critics to an equal response? No one would claim that war critics are being shut out of the media entirely. But don't we have the right to equal time on TV? Why should the President be allowed to monopolize the nation's airwaves? If this were happening in Venezuela, self-styled press freedom advocates would be having a cow. After the President's State of the Union speech, a response speech is broadcast. Why not now? I realize that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer enforced by the Federal Communications Commission. But perhaps public opinion could enforce it
[Naimain is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy]
benton.org/node/158534 | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
PRIVACY
WILL TRANSPARENCY HELP BIG DATA FACE DOWN ITS CRITICS?
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Kate Kaye]
Big data has a big problem. They're the lifeblood of a marketing industry bent on efficiency and accurate targeting, but data-mining companies have for decades operated under a shroud of mystery and are not so easily trusted when it comes to consumers and privacy activists. Data giant Acxiom is aiming to quell concerns with a little transparency in the hopes that it will pacify lawmakers threatening to curb the industry's practices and preempt heightened consumer concern about data security and privacy. Acxiom's solution -- the just-launched website AboutTheData -- invites visitors to enter their names, addresses, and the last four digits of their social security numbers to access a portal that reveals the information the company has gathered on them. The initiative addresses a call made by Federal Trade Commissioner Julie Brill, who has been prodding the data industry to be more forthcoming about what it knows and how it operates. Her cautious praise could inspire other data firms to embark on similar projects aimed at transparency and appeasing government. benton.org/node/158437 | AdAge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
TELECOM
LIFELINE STATEMENT
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn]
Most of us take for granted that we can call 911 in a crisis and reach family, friends and employers when necessary. But for many low-income Americans, this basic necessity -- phone service – remains a luxury few can afford. Ensuring access to communications for all Americans, regardless of income, is why Lifeline was launched in 1985 during the Reagan Administration, and why this commitment was codified by Congress in 1996. And that’s why the FCC has modernized and reformed Lifeline for today’s world of mobile communications while looking forward to the next challenge: providing affordable access to broadband. Lifeline Awareness Week is a time for us to appreciate what a lifeline the program has been for the neediest Americans – and to share our vision of a lifeline to jobs, education, health and opportunity through affordable broadband access for all.
benton.org/node/158449 | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
POLICYMAKERS
COWBOY OF THE NSA
[SOURCE: Foreign Policy, AUTHOR: Shane Harris]
On Aug 1, 2005, Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander reported for duty as the 16th director of the National Security Agency, the United States' largest intelligence organization. He seemed perfect for the job. Under Alexander’s watch, the breadth, scale, and ambition of its mission have expanded beyond anything ever contemplated by his predecessors. The NSA was already a data behemoth when Alexander took over. In 2007, the NSA began collecting information from Internet and technology companies under the so-called PRISM program. In essence, it was a pipes-bending operation. The agency has collected so much information that it ran out of storage capacity at its 350-acre headquarters at Fort Meade. At a cost of more than $2 billion, it has built a new processing facility in the Utah desert, and it recently broke ground on a complex in Maryland. There is a line item in the NSA's budget just for research on "coping with information overload." Yet it's still not enough for Alexander, who has proposed installing the NSA's surveillance equipment on the networks of defense contractors, banks, and other organizations deemed essential to the US economy or national security. Alexander cast himself as the ultimate defender of civil liberties, as a man who needs to spy on some people in order to protect everyone. But those who've worked closely with Alexander say that lately he has become blinded by the power of technology. And now, for the first time in Alexander's career, Congress and the general public are expressing deep misgivings about sharing information with the NSA or letting it install surveillance equipment.
benton.org/node/158429 | Foreign Policy
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
STORIES FROM ABROAD
CHINA’S GRIP ON SOCIAL MEDIA
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Josh Chin]
Chinese authorities said that social-media users who post comments considered to be slanderous could face prison if the posts attract wide attention—a ruling free-speech advocates criticized as an attempt to give legal backing to the suppression of online dissent. Internet users will face charges of defamation—and a possible three-year prison term—if they create slanderous content that attracts at least 5,000 hits or is reposted at least 500 times, according to the judicial interpretation, copies of which were posted to state-media websites. The document said slanderous posts that cause "psychological imbalance, self-mutilation, suicide or other serious consequences" would also be considered defamatory.
benton.org/node/159052 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top