October 2013

Call it déjà view. With three weeks of Nielsen data in the books, the 2013-14 broadcast TV season is shaping up to be a carbon copy of 2012’s campaign. As was the case then, NBC is in first place among live-same-day deliveries, averaging a 2.9 in the demo, while CBS and ABC are tied with a 2.1. Bringing up the rear is Fox (1.9). As stable as the early ratings have been, the age discrepancy between now and 12 months ago is a bit disconcerting. But for ABC, every network has aged up a bit versus the year-ago period, bringing the average broadcast viewer to a ripe old 53.9 years. In other words, nearly half of those watching network television have aged out of the 25-54 demo. With a median age of 58.2 years, CBS remains the oldest-skewing of the Big Four. The graying of broadcast may be a logical function of an aging populace, but it also suggests that younger viewers simply are not tuning in to network TV.

Gov Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed two bills on Oct. 3 that will provide additional funding to broadband projects in rural and low-income areas of the state.

Senate Bill (SB) 740 will funnel increased funding to service providers that can provide access in areas that have either slow or no Internet access. Assembly Bill (AB) 1299 allocates money to encourage broadband development in housing projects and other low-income areas. State Sen Alex Padilla, author of SB 740, issued a statement upon passage of his bill, saying it was a positive step toward narrowing the state’s digital divide. The bill will provide $90 million for broadband projects, taken from telecommunications ratepayer surcharges between 2015 and 2020. The bill will also create an avenue for funding service providers by modifying eligibility requirements outlined in the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to allow the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to award funding to telecommunications companies.

[Commentary] Is the US losing control of the Internet? That’s how some are interpreting a statement released in October by ten organizations central to the Internet’s operation.

“With striking unanimity, the organizations that actually develop and administer Internet standards and resources initiated a break with three decades of US dominance of Internet governance,” writes Milton Mueller, a professor at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies. “A break” sounds severe -- what would that mean? How much of the web does the US control, anyway? And how fast could they lose that control?

The leaders of the ten organizations signed the statement in Montevideo, Uruguay. They include ICANN, the standards-making IETF and W3C, the Internet Society, and the five regional registries. But of those ten organizations, the US has oversight powers over only one: ICANN. So if the Uruguay statement concerns the United States, then it really concerns the functioning of ICANN. And three bullet points in the statement do mention ICANN, calling for “accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing.” The statement constitutes, according to Mueller, “the latest, and one of the most significant manifestations of the fallout from the Snowden revelations about NSA spying on the global Internet.” However, the Uruguay signatories, who “expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance” is only partially tied to the NSA. It also lets countries (with their own spying services) and companies (who often want more freedom on the web) complain about the US’s small corner of Internet oversight, and possibly find a reason to re-negotiate with the country. But if negotiations restart, what will ICANN go to the table to seek? And what would replace the US in overseeing ICANN?

“What you’ll notice,” says A. Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami, “is that the resolution is pretty vague about what’s going to replace the US in terms of controls.”

For the first time, AT&T finished first in calls, web surfing and text messaging on wireless phones, according to Root Metrics, which routinely tests networks in cities nationwide.

AT&T dethroned Verizon Wireless, which previously had the best overall score. AT&T's edge is network speed more than quality. AT&T and Verizon were virtually tied in reliability. Root Metrics, based in Bellevue, Wash., said AT&T's download speed is 19.1 megabits per second, compared with 13.5 megabits for runner-up Verizon. AT&T tied for the lowest rate of dropped calls, at 0.2 percent. AT&T spent $2.6 billion on wired and wireless networks in Illinois between 2010 and 2012, followed by another $625 million in the first half of 2013. Although AT&T didn't break out wireless spending, it has been adding infill networks aggressively in high-demand areas, such as Navy Pier, to take loads off the overall network.