February 2014

INTERNET/BROADBAND

COMCAST DEAL WON'T LEAD TO NETFLIX PRICE HIKE
[SOURCE: CNNMoney, AUTHOR: James O'Toole]
Rest easy, Netflix fans -- the online video service is unlikely to jack up costs following its big deal with Comcast to boost streaming speeds. But the partnership raises big questions about the future of Internet video. The Comcast deal is novel in that it's the first time Netflix has had to pay an Internet service provider for direct access to its network. Netflix already connects directly for free with some smaller ISPs like Cablevision, as well as a number of international providers. Dan Rayburn, an analyst with Frost Sullivan, says the agreement will save money for Netflix, since it can now cut out the middlemen and deliver to Comcast directly. Other analysts are skeptical of that claim, but are still confident there won't be a big impact on consumers.
benton.org/node/175410 | CNNMoney
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NOBODY KNOWS WHAT NETFLIX IS ACTUALLY PAYING COMCAST. THAT’S A PROBLEM.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung]
[Commentary] Will Netflix pass the cost of its new Comcast agreement onto its own customers? If so, would that cost be tripled or quadrupled if Netflix then signs separate deals with other Internet providers, such as Verizon? It's hard to say. Some, like Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter, predict that Netflix will raise its prices in order to cover the cost. Others, like telecom analyst Jeff Kagan, say that dealing directly with Comcast won't incur any new costs for Netflix and could actually be cheaper for the company because it will no longer rely on third-party middlemen to route videos to Comcast subscribers. Neither Netflix nor Comcast is talking specifics about the deal, but it has spawned a great deal of speculation on the issue. The central problem here is a lack of information. We don't know how Comcast's deal with Netflix is structured and how much money is changing hands. That makes it hard to judge whether critics are right when they claim Comcast is engaging in anticompetitive business practices. And it makes it hard to know whether consumers will wind up paying more as a result of the deal. We could fix this by having the government require Comcast to be more forthcoming about its Netflix relationship.
benton.org/node/175393 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX IS NOT A PART OF THE INTERNET
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Paul Sweeting]
[Commentary] The deal between Comcast and Netflix has been the subject of some thoughtful analysis of its potential implications for the broader Internet economy. But overall, the public discussion of the deal has generated more heat than light. One source of confusion is the assumption that Netflix must somehow be an injured party here -- that it had “no recourse“ but to “capitulate” to Comcast’s demands because the ISP had it “over a barrel.” A source of confusion about the deal is a misunderstanding of the business Netflix is actually in. Netflix is not an “Internet” company. It’s business is not premised or contingent on the organization or underlying technology protocols of the Internet the way Facebook’s business is, or Google’s. Netflix is in the business of producing, licensing and distributing movie and TV content, full stop. It uses the Internet as one of its platforms for delivering that content (the US Postal Service is another), but moving bits around on the Internet is merely a necessary step to engaging in its main business of getting content in front of consumers. As for whether the arrangement with Comcast means Netflix will now get preferential treatment -- of course it does, but so what? In the content business, at least, big distributors always have preferential access to the market. That’s why indie record labels and movie studios sign with the majors for distribution. Access to the market is a function of scale and market size, and smaller distributors, by definition, don’t have those things, so they have a harder time getting their content in front of consumers. That may seem wrong, or unfair on some level. But it’s not a new phenomenon in the content business and it certainly didn’t start with the Netflix-Comcast deal. [Sweeting is Principal Concurrent Media Strategies]
benton.org/node/175411 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX-COMCAST DEAL ENDS INTERNET CONSUMPTION DISPUTE
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Dawn Chmielewski, Meg James]
The landmark deal between Comcast and Netflix resolves a simmering dispute over who will support America's growing Internet video habit. Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast for a direct connection to the cable operator's broadband networks to ensure that Netflix customers receive an uninterrupted viewing experience when streaming movies and TV shows. The agreement comes after Netflix customers complained about deteriorating service, as videos they tried to watch stuttered and stalled in midstream. The difficulties highlight the increasing problem of Internet network congestion. The nation's data lines were not designed with enough capacity to handle today's crush of traffic — particularly during peak hours. Experts for years have been warning about a looming online traffic jam. Netflix gobbles up about 30% of Internet traffic during evening hours, and that percentage is expected to swell as more people subscribe to the popular streaming service. The company is undergoing one of the fastest growth spurts in the industry, boasting more than 33 million subscribers in the U.S. -- a nearly threefold increase from four years ago. But video streaming quality had become a problem. To improve the quality of its streaming service, Netflix had been commissioning third parties, such as Cogent Communications, to deliver its video traffic across the Internet to Comcast and other Internet providers. But Netflix wanted to cut out the middleman and deal directly with Comcast.
benton.org/node/175386 | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

MARC ANDREESSEN SAYS MORE NET NEUTRALITY LAWS ARE NOT THE ANSWER
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Mathew Ingram]
Comcast’s recent deal with Netflix re-ignited a debate on network neutrality and how best to implement it. Venture investor Marc Andreessen argues that competition is what will solve the problem, not more regulations. Andreessen asked whether Comcast should be forced to handle an ever-increasing amount of traffic from Netflix for free, or whether there was some point Comcast should be compensated somehow for that load on its network. He argued that too much of the discussion about network neutrality assumes that the internet is a static thing, rather than something that is likely to increase exponentially in terms of its demand for bandwidth, and that a strict or dogmatic adherence to net neutrality would likely “kill investment in infrastructure [and] limit the future of what broadband can deliver.” After Fortune magazine writer Dan Primack argued that Comcast’s monopoly was a big part of the problem, Andreessen responded by comparing Netflix’s demands on the network to the highway traffic system. What if there was a trucking company whose usage of the highway system was growing by 200 or 300 percent every year, Andreessen asked -- at what point would it seem natural to charge that trucking company more for its use of a public resource, even if that might raise prices?
benton.org/node/175371 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WHAT COMCAST-NETFLIX MEANS TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Benny Evangelista]
Four months ago, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings told financial analysts he believed technological innovation would continue only if Internet service companies were not "taxing each other." Now his company agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to Comcast to ensure that its streaming of online movies and TV shows runs smoothly. It's a stunning about-face, according to critics, who fear the deal imperils the concept of network neutrality and could cost customers more money in the long run. Two factors caused the sudden switch, which BTIG Research analyst Richard Greenfield calls "a complete 180-degree change" for Netflix: the overthrow of network neutrality rules and the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The deal also could mean Comcast has eliminated one influential dissenter that could help block the proposed merger with Time Warner Cable, said analyst Ken Doctor of the media, information and entertainment consulting firm Outsell. "They'll be on the sidelines now," Doctor said. "It makes less sense today for Netflix to oppose or raise questions about Comcast acquiring Time Warner Cable than it did last Friday." The agreement also sets a troubling precedent for other companies that depend on the Internet for revenue, including entertainment companies and Web publishers who are not as big or lucrative as Netflix, he said. "It raises a lot of questions about who exactly has access to the Internet and at what price," he said.
benton.org/node/175423 | San Francisco Chronicle
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX DEAL SHOWS PERIL OF COMCAST-TIME WARNER PLAN
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Netflix's agreement to pay Comcast for smoother streaming of movies and TV shows marks the end of an era for the Internet. It should send shivers down the spines of anybody who relies on online information. It also should galvanize the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice to reject the $45 billion merger of Comcast and Time Warner, which would compound the potential for limiting the flow of knowledge. The deal marks the first time an Internet content provider has agreed to pay for direct access to a broadband provider's customers. It's a direct hit on the concept of an open, free Internet, a principle that helped unleash the Information Age and transformed the world. Netflix and Comcast subscribers may benefit in the short term, since the deal will result in faster downloads and fewer disruptions while watching streamed programming. But Comcast now has established that program providers must pay for premium access to its broadband services, and that changes everything. President Barack Obama has made improved broadband access a national priority. His administration needs to nix the Comcast merger.
benton.org/node/175422 | San Jose Mercury News
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

HOW THE INTERNET WAS MEANT TO BE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Holman Jenkins Jr]
[Commentary] Won't established businesses like Netflix now have an advantage over startups because Netflix can pay Comcast for quality delivery? Established businesses always have advantages, but this objection completely misunderstands the significance of the Comcast-Netflix deal: Until its traffic is big enough to cause problems at the backbone level, a startup will have no trouble getting delivery to end-users over the public Internet. Tragically, armies of lobbyists and fake "experts" by now have made their reputations around net neutrality. It's their Procrustean ticket to regulating the Internet and they aren't letting go. Let us quickly add that the new Federal Communications Commission chief Tom Wheeler fully understands what's what, but the Washington policy circus frequently can travel only at the pace of the dimmest congressman and most bloody-minded interest group. Having to face the hyperventilating overreaction to the proposed Time Warner-Comcast merger at the same time doesn't help matters. His great challenge, especially as a Democratic appointee, will be assuaging the demented sermons of the net-neut clergy without actually outlawing economically useful transactions.
benton.org/node/175421 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMCAST, NETFLIX PROVE THE INTERNET IS WORKING
[SOURCE: American Enterprise Institute, AUTHOR: Bret Swanson]
[Commentary] The news that Comcast and Netflix agreed to connect their networks ratifies the basic Internet model -- that of a vibrant, entrepreneurial, fast-paced, ever-changing, sometimes contentious, but usually cooperative, environment largely free of government interference. Netflix will, for a fee, now link its servers, containing its movies and TV shows, directly to Comcast, most likely in third party data centers. These direct connections at peering points around the nation will produce more robust connectivity and reliable capacity for Netflix and its customers. Some observers are upset that Netflix will pay Comcast instead of backbone providers. We’re not sure why. Other Internet firms have engaged in these “paid peering” relationships for years. [Swanson is president of Entropy Economics LLC, a strategic research firm]
benton.org/node/175367 | American Enterprise Institute
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SOCIALEDU
[SOURCE: Facebook, AUTHOR: Press release]
SocialEDU is a Internet.org pilot initiative that will provide students in Rwanda with free access to a collaborative online education experience. How did we do this? By bringing together the right partners. We worked with the Rwandan government, a telecommunications company, a device manufacturer and an educational content provider to develop a plan to provide students with free, high-quality, localized educational content and create a social learning experience that is accessible via handheld devices. The initiative builds on the success of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) by making it possible to access high-quality educational content affordably. At its core, SocialEDU addresses five critical barriers to access by bringing together:
Free content
Free data
Affordable smartphones
Localized, social educational experience
A government that supports innovation
benton.org/node/175385 | Facebook | EdSurge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

FACEBOOK’S PLAN TO CONQUER THE WORLD -- WITH CRAPPY PHONES AND BAD NETWORKS
[SOURCE: Wired, AUTHOR: Mat Honan]
[Commentary] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a new Internet.org innovation lab where developers will be able to test the kinds of challenging connectivity conditions they might expect to find in the developing world -- without even leaving California. For many people in the developing world, Facebook is the Internet. And while that may be somewhat true in America too, we Yanks can at least pull up the world’s leading social network on desktops and iPhones and Galaxy S4s with robust Internet connections, gorgeous screens and easy access to a reliable power grid. Meanwhile, in Africa and Asia and South America where Facebook is trying attract another 5 billion users, that technological sophistication is far from given. Facebook faces massive hurdles there that are just unknown here.
benton.org/node/175381 | Wired
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE CASE FOR CONNECTIVITY
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Alec Ross]
[Commentary] Land was the raw material of the agricultural age. Iron was the raw material of the industrial age. Data is the raw material of the information age. Recent advancements in communications technology have created a dynamic global economy that is increasingly driven by new products, services and businesses reliant on data-rich environments. And unlike land or iron, data isn't a limited resource. It is infinitely reproducible and immediately accessible to everyone, everywhere via an Internet connection. At least it should be. Currently, only about a third of all the people on earth have Internet access of any kind. Billions of people have never done so much as a single Google search, let alone -- searched for a job, taken a course or found medical information online. What would our world look like if everyone was connected? In the end, overcoming the challenge of connectivity will require more than waiting for market forces to work their magic. It will require governments, NGOs, aid groups and policy makers to coordinate their efforts with market actors such as telecoms, hardware manufacturers, software developers and programmers to create sustainable economic models that ensure connectivity, once achieved, keeps improving. When people everywhere are no longer limited by the circumstances of their birth to the raw material of the information age and can participate in the global economy, we will inherit a world of greater opportunity, prosperity and understanding for everyone. [Ross is Senior Fellow at Columbia University's School of International & Public Affairs]
benton.org/node/175394 | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

UNLOCKING BILL PASSES
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Troy Wolverton]
The House of Representatives passed a bill that would overturn a regulatory ruling from last year. That ruling, made by the Librarian of Congress, eliminated a previous exemption from copyright law that allowed consumers to unlock their cell phones. Under the bill, H.R. 1123, the Librarian would review the issue again next year. The bill, which passed 295-114, will now proceed to the Senate. While many in Congress on both sides of the aisle support restoring unlocking rights, some supporters ended up opposing the bill after it was quietly changed. The new language added to the bill would bar the bulk unlocking of cell phones, which could hinder the market for used cell phones. That provision, which wasn’t subject to any hearings or debate, would be bad for consumers and set a bad precedent, argued Reps Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/02/25/unlocking-bill-passes-house/
Cell phone freedom bill passes House (The Hill)
benton.org/node/175419 | San Jose Mercury News | The Hill
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THANKS BUT NO THANKS
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Jon Healey]
[Commentary] A House bill was supposed to clear the way for consumers to unlock the phones they buy from wireless companies after they've fulfilled their contracts. But the measure, which was modest to begin with, has been rendered irrelevant by voluntary agreements on unlocking that the Federal Communications Commission obtained from the wireless companies. The bill was also changed at the last minute in a way that arguably weakens consumers' ownership rights, prompting some consumer advocates and Democrats to withdraw their support. The current version is so bad, consumers would be better off if Congress did nothing at all. At issue is a dubious interpretation of copyright law that deters people from moving their phones from one network to another. Each mobile carrier typically sells phones with electronic locks that prevent them from being reprogrammed to work on rival carriers' networks. The US Copyright Office, acting through the Librarian of Congress, ruled in 2012 that removing the locks violated the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forbids the circumvention of technologies that protect copyrighted works. The ruling was bizarre, considering that the locks inside phones don't protect against software piracy; their only real purpose is to protect the mobile carriers' business model.
benton.org/node/175418 | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BANNING CELLPHONE LOCKING
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Troy Wolverton]
[Commentary] With everyone from President Barack Obama to tea party-affiliated conservative groups to liberal leaning consumer interest organizations in favor of consumers having the right to unlock their phones, the modest and temporary nature of a House bill is simply astonishing. And it makes me wonder why policymakers aren't pushing for a simpler, permanent and much more consumer friendly solution -- a ban on the locking of cellphones in the first place. Those who have championed the right to unlock devices make the powerful and reasonable argument that because consumers own these devices, they ought to be able to use them as they wish, as long as what they're doing is legal. There's nothing illegal or illegitimate about switching carriers or using a cellphone sold in the U.S. overseas, so why should an arguably misapplied provision of copyright law stand in the way of such activities? Consumers can use their laptops on any Internet service they want; why can't they have the same freedom with their smartphones? The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless carriers, should simply ban the locking of devices. The FCC could take that action using its current authority; it wouldn't need an act of Congress. And it would have legitimate reasons for doing so. Not only would the action explicitly enshrine a position the agency supports, it also would promote competition, one of the agency's core missions.
benton.org/node/175417 | San Jose Mercury News
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PENTAGON WANTS TO SHARE SPECTRUM WITH BROADBAND PROVIDERS, NOT AUCTION IT
[SOURCE: nextgov, AUTHOR: Bob Brewin]
The Pentagon no longer plans to hand over to industry spectrum it now considers vital to national security, a reversal from a broad policy position outlined by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in March 2012. The new Defense Department spectrum strategy, as detailed by Chief Information Officer Teri Takai, calls for sharing spectrum with industry, as well as Defense efforts to develop technologies for more efficient use of spectrum. NTIA said in 2012 that it was possible to repurpose all spectrum in the 1755-1850 MHz band used by Defense for, among other things, Army battlefield communications and small unmanned aerial systems.
benton.org/node/175369 | nextgov
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

MORE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CELLPHONES THAN EVER HAD LANDLINES
[SOURCE: Quartz, AUTHOR: Tim Fernholz]
There are almost as many cell phone subscriptions (6.8 billion) as there are people on this earth (seven billion) -- and it took a little more than 20 years for that to happen. In 2013, there were some 96 cell phone service subscriptions for every 100 people in the world. Those figures are the latest from the United Nations’ telecommunications agency, which keeps track of the rise and fall of various kinds of communications technology. Of course, 100 subscriptions doesn’t mean that everyone has a cell phone, just most people. In wealthier countries, penetration rates exceed 100% because of individuals with multiple subscriptions, making up for the disparity in developing economies. Still, penetration rates are impressive even in poor countries, with an average of 89.4 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.
benton.org/node/175398 | Quartz
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

IS THE FCC MOVING TOO FAST ON WIRELESS 911 LOCATION ACCURACY?
[SOURCE: Government Technology, AUTHOR: Brian Heaton]
The Federal Communications Commission announced it would adopt new rules to ensure better location accuracy results for wireless 911 calls. But while public safety advocates have applauded the move, the industry is urging caution, citing technology concerns. CTIA -- The Wireless Association, which represents the major wireless carriers, has called for the FCC to base its rules on verified data, not aspirational goals. CTIA pointed to results from the Communications, Security, Reliability & Interoperability Council (CSRIC)’s Location Accuracy Test Bed in 2013 that indicates further technology development is needed to locate indoor wireless callers. Brian Josef, assistant vice president, regulatory affairs, for CTIA, said that arguably the best-performing technology in the test bed only located a call coming from the correct building one-third of the time. “The concern from the industry standpoint is, you’re going to subject carriers to enforceable rules that are not consistent with the technology as it exists today, but also don’t reflect a viable timeline [to get the technology more reliable],” Josef said. “That’s why we believe that these rules, as proposed, are aspirational. That’s the reluctance on the part of the industry.”
benton.org/node/175392 | Government Technology
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GROWING UNLICENSED SPECTRUM, GROWING THE WIRELESS ECONOMY
[SOURCE: Revere Digital, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel]
[Commentary] Why does the coming crush in unlicensed spectrum matter? For starters, the unlicensed economy represents economic growth. Today, unlicensed wireless devices contribute between $16 billion and $37 billion to our economy annually. To put that in perspective, that is more than Americans spend on milk and bread each year, combined. Finally, the unlicensed economy is critical for Internet connectivity. Now, through Wi-Fi, more than one half of wireless data connections are offloaded onto unlicensed spectrum. So, while the 2.4GHz band continues to service us well, it is getting mighty congested. If we get our unlicensed spectrum policies right, we can seriously expand Wi-Fi opportunities. At the same time, making more unlicensed spectrum available can give a jolt to the coming Internet of Things and machine-to-machine communications. But above all, the time to act is now -- and expanding unlicensed service in the 5.1GHz band is a great place to start.
benton.org/node/175380 | Revere Digital
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMCAST | TIME WARNER CABLE

COULD COMCAST-TIME WARNER CABLE MERGER GO THE WAY OF TCI-BELL ATLANTIC?
[SOURCE: Fierce, AUTHOR: Steve Donohue]
[Commentary] On Feb 24, 1994, Verizon predecessor Bell Atlantic and John Malone's Tele-Communications announced that they had agreed to cancel a $33 billion merger agreement. As the industry weighs the impact of Comcast's merger agreement with Time Warner Cable, I thought it would be good to take a look at what happened to the TCI-Bell Atlantic deal, and whether there are lessons from that failed merger that would be useful to consider when we gauge the prospects of Comcast closing its deal to acquire Time Warner Cable. TCI, which was the biggest US cable operator at the time, announced its merger agreement with Bell Atlantic -- one of seven Baby Bells that were created after AT&T settled an antitrust suit in 1982. Harvard Business School Professor Thomas Eisenmann describes the motivations for the TCI-Bell Atlantic deal, and why it fizzled, in a case study he published in 1999 about TCI. "The Bell Atlantic deal was motivated by a concern that the Clinton Administration would promote competition on terms unfavorable to cable. Malone and [the late TCI founder Bob] Magness felt that TCI needed a strategic partner with capital, technology, and political clout. However, the merger fell apart after Bell Atlantic's stock price declined by over 20 percent in the wake of the announcement, due in large part to shareholders' concerns that the company would cut its dividend to fund ambitious upgrade plans. Malone was also concerned that Bell Atlantic and TCI would have been forced to make unreasonable concessions to the government to secure regulatory approval for the merger," Eisenmann wrote in his TCI case study, titled "Cascading Miracles."
benton.org/node/175413 | Fierce
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMCAST, TIME WARNER, AND THE FUTURE OF THE CABLE BOX
[SOURCE: Fast Company, AUTHOR: Neal Ungerleider]
[Commentary] In acquiring Time Warner Cable, Comcast is obtaining a media company with a much different view of the cable box's future and the interplay between broadband Internet and cable television. While Time Warner has been willing to work with partners like Apple TV and Roku to provide cable television programming that doesn't go through actual cable boxes, Comcast's view is different. Rather than a Roku or smart television future, it seems as though Comcast wants to essentially turn customer's cable boxes into smart devices. Much like other industry stakeholders like Twitter, Comcast is well aware that cable customers are outgrowing their cable boxes and remote controls -- and that new successor devices, like Xfinity sets and smartphone remote control apps, can capture all sorts of additional data that can then be monetized. The smart television revolution, of which Xfinity is very much a part, isn't just about offering a better viewing experience -- it's also about leveraging as much data about viewers as possible for advertisers and other parties. While companies like Amazon use every click a visitor makes to serve them with products and specialized services, cable providers haven't leveraged the data revolution to serve television viewers with customized ads yet. Comcast knows that the future belongs to the parties who can find out exactly how many seconds viewers pause their channel flipping when a show interests them--and they want to make sure it's them obtaining the data, not Roku, Google, or Apple.
benton.org/node/175412 | Fast Company
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION

JOINT AD SALES
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Gautham Nagesh]
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is planning to put forth a proposal on media-ownership rules that would make it harder for broadcast companies to control two TV stations in the same local market by using a single advertising sales staff, according to people familiar with the matter. The five-member commission is expected to vote next month on a long-awaited order, which Chairman Wheeler is likely to make public in the coming weeks. Under current rules, broadcasters typically are banned from owning two full-power TV stations in the same local market. But some companies have skirted that restriction by using agreements that allow them to control programming and ad sales at a second station through agreements with the owner. Consolidation in the broadcast industry in recent years has resulted in the proliferation of companies that outsource the management of their stations, sometimes called sidecars. One type of arrangement known as a joint sales agreement allows one station to sell advertising on behalf of another, while charging it for the service. As part of the commission's regular review of its media ownership rules, Wheeler's order would treat broadcasters as the owners of any station for which they handle more than 15% of the advertising sales. If the five-member commission approves the order, many larger broadcasters, such as Sinclair Broadcast Group, could be forced to unwind the agreements that don't meet these requirements within two years or face a potential violation of the FCC's media ownership rules. Individual companies could also apply for a waiver, which would have a high threshold for approval.
benton.org/node/175420 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE

HOUSE TO HOLD HEARING ON FCC STUDY
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said he is "pursuing legislative solutions" to block the Federal Communications Commission's Critical Information Needs (CIN) study. Chairman Walden said Chairman Wheeler has not adequately responded to a letter from House Republicans about the study, and Walden plans to hold a hearing and introduce legislation to stop it. Such legislation is unlikely to pass a divided Congress, but the hearing could be an opportunity to grill FCC commissioners on the issue if they agreed to testify. “The very existence of this CIN study is an affront to the First Amendment and should have never been proposed in the first place," said Chairman Walden. "As someone with a journalism degree, I was alarmed from the moment I saw it, which is why we wrote to Chairman Wheeler in December to urge him to stop the study. To date, Chairman Wheeler has insisted upon only making small tweaks, and what he has proposed to do isn’t enough. The study should be eradicated completely.”
benton.org/node/175399 | Multichannel News
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

WHITE HOUSE CONSIDERS SURVEILLANCE OPTIONS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Siobhan Gorman, Devlin Barrett]
Administration lawyers have presented the White House with four options for restructuring the National Security Agency's phone-surveillance program, from ditching the controversial collection altogether to running it through the telephone companies, according to officials familiar with the discussions. None of the three options for relocating the data have gained universal favor. But failure to agree on one of them would leave only the option of abolishing the program, which would be a setback for intelligence agencies and other backers of the surveillance effort. Of the three options for relocating the data, two of them -- with phone companies or another government agency -- appear most technically possible. One way would have the phone companies retain the data, officials said. The NSA would then tell the companies when it needs searches of call records concerning specific phone numbers the agency believes are connected to terrorism. The companies would provide the results to the NSA. Under this model, the NSA would only collect the data that comes in response to the search, rather than millions of unrelated American phone records. Several lawmakers have proposed legislation on Capitol Hill that would take this approach. But telecommunications companies oppose this option.
A second option would have a government agency other than the NSA hold the data. Candidates for this option could include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which some current and former intelligence officials have recommended. Another possibility floated in policy circles was turning the program over to the custody of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees the phone-data and other NSA surveillance programs, but judges have balked at an expanded role for the court. A third option would be for an entity outside the phone companies or the government to hold the data, officials said. This approach has been criticized by privacy groups who say such a third party would just become an extension of the NSA and would provide no additional privacy benefit.
benton.org/node/175424 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

February 2014

February 26, 2014 (Comcast-Netflix; Unlocking Cellphones)

White House Weighs Four Options for Revamping NSA Phone Surveillance

What the Comcast-Netflix deal means to network neutrality

Netflix deal shows peril of Comcast-Time Warner plan

How the Internet Was Meant to Be

FCC Targets TV Joint Ad-Sales Deals

Unlocking Bill Passes House

The House's cellphone unlocking bill: Thanks but no thanks

Banning locked cellphones a simpler, better approach to unlocking issue

Smartphone Makers Aim at Emerging Markets With Low-End Devices