February 2014

INTERNET/BROADBAND

THE NETFLIX-COMCAST AGREEMENT ISN’T A NETWORK NEUTRALITY VIOLATION, BUT IT IS A PROBLEM
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Stacey Higginbotham]
[Commentary] It wasn’t long after Comcast and Netflix finally settled a festering peering dispute that people starting claiming that this resolution means the end of network neutrality. But it’s not. For better or worse, the legal framework governing net neutrality in the US -- the recently gutted Open Internet Order -- doesn’t touch the issue of network interconnection and peering. But even if Netflix (and other companies) paying Comcast for direct access to its network isn’t a violation of net neutrality, it is a concern. The fear is that Netflix can’t provide a decent-quality video streaming service unless it pays to peer with Comcast, either directly or through a transit provider that has a direct interconnection. Netflix has mitigated this issue by paying transit providers that peer directly with Comcast to carry its traffic. But as anyone who covers the Internet knows, Internet giants benefit if they can control their own infrastructure and costs as they get bigger. With 30 percent of US broadband traffic, Netflix is certainly big enough to want to control the costs of delivering its bits to the end consumer. Given that Microsoft, Google and many others have already decided to pay Comcast for a direct connection or pay a transit provider with a direct connection, Comcast has now enshrined its version of peering -- one that requires companies that send a lot of traffic to its network to pay. Another issue is that Comcast is setting the rates to let content providers get their traffic onto its network rates in a relative vacuum. These agreements aren’t transparent, even within the industry. These rates could go up over time, and they essentially act as a tax on the Internet that the web content companies have to pay to ensure their service gets to the end user. They pay this tax directly if they are a big enough provider, or indirectly by locating their servers in places that peer directly with Comcast or buying transit.
benton.org/node/175312 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS: COMCAST, NETFLIX PEERING AGREEMENT TALKS GOT SERIOUS AT CES
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Stacey Higginbotham]
The peering agreement confirmed by Comcast and Netflix had been discussed by engineers for both companies for months, as consumers reported continued declines in their video streaming quality. But the turning point came at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), when the CEOs of the sparring companies got involved in those talks alongside engineers, a mark of how significant this deal is: CEOs almost never get involved in peering agreements. At the annual Vegas tech confab, both Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings first met with senior engineers and staff to discuss an interconnection agreement, reported and confirmed by the companies. Having the top executives of the company involved shows two things: one that this is an important strategic deal for both companies and also that the technical questions about how the Internet should work are only part of the equation -- business considerations matter, too.
benton.org/node/175311 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX GETS AROUND A SPEED BUMP
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Miriam Gottfried]
Netflix and Comcast are helping each other speed toward their goals. A "mutually beneficial" deal will ensure a faster connection to Netflix's Internet-video service for customers of the country's largest broadband provider. Meanwhile, it could also help Comcast win approval for its deal to buy Time Warner Cable. For Netflix, which accounts for as much as one-third of US broadband traffic, the long-term deal solves the problem of slowing Internet speeds for many of its subscribers by establishing a more direct connection between it and Comcast without going through a middleman. Netflix already has arrangements with smaller US providers such as Cox Communications to ensure speedy streaming, as well as in international markets. This deal is likely more expensive, considering Comcast's heft. Still, it could push other large broadband providers such as Verizon Communications to do deals of their own. And the terms of Comcast's agreement with Netflix would presumably extend to Time Warner Cable if that merger gets consummated. That would cover roughly 40% of US broadband households.
benton.org/node/175257 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX/ COMCAST DEAL RELIES ON THIRD-PARTY DATA CENTERS FOR INTERCONNECTION
[SOURCE: telecompetitor, AUTHOR: Joan Engebretson]
Comcast and Netflix confirmed that they have reached an interconnection agreement -- and although the companies did not provide details, sources familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that the agreement calls for Netflix to pay Comcast for traffic sent to Comcast customers. A source familiar with the matter told Telecompetitor that the new agreement calls for Netflix and Comcast to interconnect at about a dozen third-party data centers and that Netflix would put storage servers in those data centers. Netflix originally hoped to get broadband providers to agree to exchange traffic for free by putting specialized storage servers in or near broadband provider points of presence (POPs) to store popular content, thereby minimizing the amount of traffic that would have to traverse long distances to reach end users. But major broadband providers didn’t see that as a solution to the traffic imbalance issue and did not want to set a precedent of allowing content providers to put servers in their POPs. Additionally some providers, including Verizon, are accustomed to getting paid for providing content storage capability to website operators.
benton.org/node/175301 | telecompetitor
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX, COMCAST AND NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Vikas Bajaj]
A deal announced between Comcast, the nation’s largest cable and broadband company, and Netflix, the popular video streaming service, raises several troubling questions about the future of the Internet. Under the agreement, Netflix will hook its servers directly to Comcast’s network for an undisclosed fee, cutting out the middlemen that previously connected the companies together. The companies claim the deal will not give Netflix “preferential network treatment.” In other words, they are saying that it will not violate what is popularly known as “net neutrality:” the principle that broadband companies should treat all Internet data equally, without blocking or discriminating against certain types of content. But it’s hard to imagine that Netflix would strike a deal with Comcast if it didn’t get something of value in return. The big question is what did it get and how will that affect other companies on the Internet? Unfortunately, it’s hard to answer that question because the companies have disclosed little about their agreement -- their joint statement was just two paragraphs long. That is why Federal Communications Commission and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice should ask the companies to provide more details.
benton.org/node/175264 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE RAISES CONCERNS OVER NETFLIX/COMCAST AGREEMENT
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: John Bergmayer]
No one on the outside knows what is happening in this market. However, it is clear that residential ISPs should be in the business of charging their users for access the Internet, not of charging the rest of the Internet for access to their users. This ensures that they are putting the needs of their users first. From what information is public, it appears that the largest ISPs are demanding payment from networks that deliver content and services that residential broadband consumers demand. Because the large residential ISPs themselves are the ones keeping the terms of their deals secret, it is raises the question of whether they have something to hide. One way to prevent competitive problems from arising, and to reduce the need for future regulation, is to prevent ISPs from holding other networks hostage. This raises concerns in light of the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger. What has characterized these traffic disputes has been their opacity. We call on the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, and interested members of Congress to ensure that the broadband market continues to meet the needs of its users, and allows companies like Netflix (and the next Netflix) to offer the services that users have demonstrated they want.
benton.org/node/175300 | Public Knowledge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

ARRESTING DEVELOPMENT: WHY THE COMCAST-NETFLIX DEAL SHOULD WORRY YOU
[SOURCE: Free Press, AUTHOR: Craig Aaron, Derek Turner]
[Commentary] Netflix agreed to pay Comcast an undisclosed amount to ensure that its videos stream smoothly to Comcast customers. But this is more than a deal between two giant companies: It will affect everyone who uses the Internet. And as with so many things involving Comcast, consumers will end up paying for it in the end. The deal should also be a wake-up call to regulators who are weighing the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger and grappling with what to do about network neutrality. If the game of chicken that preceded this pact becomes the norm, it will be a disaster for the future of online video. The exact terms of the Comcast-Netflix deal are secret, but this much is clear: Millions of consumers who already paid handsomely for a premium broadband experience received poor service for months on end. Comcast refused to make minimal investments to deliver what its customers already bought -- and simultaneously pushed people to upgrade to more expensive services. This deal spells bad news for future startups and anyone interested in creating or consuming online media (read: pretty much all of us). It will likely chill investment in online video startups as investors look to safer bets that don't involve battling Comcast, a company that’s poised to control over half of the bundled home video and broadband Internet market. Disputes like this hurt the open Internet. They hurt consumers. And they'll become par for the course if Internet service providers are allowed to get even bigger and operate without the Federal Communications Commission stepping in.
benton.org/node/175327 | Free Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INSIDE THE NETFLIX-COMCAST DEAL
[SOURCE: Fortune, AUTHOR: Dan Rayburn]
[Commentary] Comcast and Netflix announced a commercial interconnect relationship between the two companies, which is in the very early stages of implementation, and as a result, many who clearly don't understand how the Internet works are writing about the news. Those who don't cover network infrastructure for a living should not be trying to explain the technical details behind the announcement. Articles from mainstream outlets like TechCrunch, the Wall Street Journal, NPR and many others aren't even getting the basics right. Words like transit, peering, speed, bandwidth, capacity, etc. are being used interchangeably without any understanding of what they mean. In the hopes of trying to educate the market, let's clear up a lot of the confusion many in the media have created. The first one is that consumers need more "speed" from Comcast or Verizon to get better quality video streaming from Netflix. Next up are articles where it says that transit allows two networks to exchange "bandwidth," which is not accurate. Another statement I have seen people write about is saying that the deal focuses on the "two company's pipes." Netflix is not a network operator, they don't have any "pipes." They buy capacity from other network providers who have the pipes. So while this deal is about the interconnection between Comcast and Netflix, Comcast is the only one who actually owns the pipes. Other misstatements of late have been about transit with no real idea of just how many types of transit one can buy or how transit deals work. Most writing about Netflix don't even know the basics of how their content is delivered today or how content delivery networks and transit providers are involved. Commercial deals around interconnect help alleviate the bright lines between settlement-free interconnect (or peering) and a customer buying a retail product. Wholesale commercial deals take into account efficiencies and many other factors to drive a much lower unit cost. Bottom line is this is good for Netflix, Comcast, and for consumers, and it has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. [Rayburn is executive vice president of StreamingMedia.com and principle analyst at Frost & Sullivan]
benton.org/node/175326 | Fortune
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CLARIFYING NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Paul Sweeting]
[Commentary] Netflix’s new deal with Comcast is a clarifying moment, or at least should be. It should now be clear that the mechanics of over-the-top video delivery are not a question of network neutrality. The Netflix-Comcast deal, in fact, was made under conditions of maximum net neutrality -- at least as the Federal Communications Commission had initially construed it in its now-defunct Open Internet Order -- and of maximum scrutiny of Comcast. Comcast is still legally covered by those rules under the terms of it NBC Universal consent agreement with the Justice Department, and with Comcast now looking for the government’s blessing to acquire Time Warner Cable you can bet its lawyers are being scrupulous about hewing closely to the terms of that earlier agreement with the feds in its dealings with Netflix. If ever there were a time for Netflix to hold out and wait for the government to force Comcast’s hand in resolving whatever issues were behind the recent deterioration in the quality of Netflix streams on Comcast’s network it was now. And yet here we are, with Netflix apparently agreeing to pay Comcast to ensure smoother, more reliable streaming. So clearly, Netflix didn’t think the problem had to do with net neutrality or that it would be fixed by stricter enforcement of Comcast’s net neutrality commitment. But what the Comcast deal really reinforces is that Netflix has always been an awkward poster child for the cause of net neutrality, albeit a voluntary one. It may seem like a clean win for Comcast but that doesn’t mean it comes at Netflix’s expense. Netflix is getting a multi-year, service-level agreement with Comcast (and presumably Time Warner Cable at some point) at a predictable cost that accounts for future growth. Whatever that cost is, moreover, it’s likely to be lower than what it had been costing Netflix to send traffic to Comcast up to now via a third-party transit provider. [Sweeting is Principal, Concurrent Media Strategies]
benton.org/node/175329 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NET NEUTRALITY PUTS CONSUMERS 'IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT’?
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Julian Hattem]
The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to take up new network neutrality rules will “put the consumers back in the driver’s seat,” according to Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA). “In fact, if the consumer isn’t in the driver’s seat, then it’s going to change the Internet,” Rep Eshoo said. “I don’t know anyone that would raise their hand and say ‘I’m for blocking and I’m for discriminatory practices,’” she added. Rep Eshoo is the top Democrat on House Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology, and is vying to be the top Democrat on the full committee.
benton.org/node/175318 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX “MOST FAVORED NATION,” PAID PEERING AGREEMENT WITH COMCAST: THE GOOD, BAD AND UGLY
[SOURCE: Telefrieden, AUTHOR: Rob Frieden]
[Commentary] Notwithstanding Comcast’s open Internet access commitment made to close the NBC Universal acquisition, the company has executed a preferential access deal with Netflix. For me the primary question is what kind of discrimination does “better than best efforts” routing constitute? At the risk of giving an inch so Comcast can take a mile, I consider paid peering a reasonable quality of service discrimination with several caveats. First the possibility exists that payments flowing directly from Netflix to Comcast are largely offset by reductions in the direct payments the company makes to content distribution networks like Level 3 and Cogent. Netflix and its customers benefit from higher quality of service with fewer intermediary carriers and routers. More direct traffic routing probably accords Comcast greater leverage upstream with Netflix and similarly situated content providers. But without adequate oversight nothing prevents Comcast from making paid peering -- and the surcharge it incorporates -- standard operating procedure. In other words, little remains of plain vanilla “best efforts” routing: Comcast can demand similar payments from other content providers and distributors backed up by a not so veiled threat that it simply will not have adequate downstream delivery capacity to accommodate even what it previously was able to handle. Perhaps other content providers, generating less traffic, can continue to squeeze by with standard best efforts routing. But why would a competitor of Netflix risk the consequences knowing that ISPs like Comcast can throttle, degrade and create artificial congestion without FCC sanction.
benton.org/node/175292 | TeleFrieden
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CONSUMER IMPACTS OF A NET BIASED ECOSYSTEM
[SOURCE: Telefrieden, AUTHOR: Rob Frieden]
[Commentary] Consumers ought to understand what opportunities and threats arise from an even more non-neutral Internet. Expect existing trends to become entrenched with new impacts, which can be defined as extended or developing trends. Expect the following extended trends:
Best efforts routing to be extended by retail Internet Service Providers, operating the first and last mile broadband link, offering enhanced quality of service options for a price; ISPs pressing for even higher broadband service rates through general rate increases and additional tiering; and substantial narrowing of the gap of download caps between wireline and wireless broadband options.
Avoid download debits by ISPs “softening the blow” of stingy download caps with expanded opportunities for content and service providers to pay in lieu of metering the download.
Expect the following developing trends:
ISPs Demand More Incentives to Upgrade. Expect ISPs to leverage network upgrades in exchange for better interconnection terms with content providers and their downstream Content Distribution Networks; If Netflix wants to reduce its CDN payments, then it will have to pay ISPs directly.
More Interconnection Compensation Disputes. One might consider increases in peering/transit disputes as an extension of an existing trend. However, the frequency of disputes and the complexity make this a developing trend. A recent and probably temporary surge in broadband demand points to the potential for consumers to experience degraded service.
benton.org/node/175291 | TeleFrieden
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX AND COMCAST DECLARE PEACE
[SOURCE: American Enterprise Institute, AUTHOR: Richard Bennett]
[Commentary] Netflix and Comcast announced that they’ve come to terms on an interconnection agreement. In general, the deal means that Comcast and Netflix will connect their networks as peers, which cuts middlemen Cogent, Level 3, and Tata out of the path between their networks. While very few people find it controversial that Netflix has to pay Cogent, Level 3, or Tata to carry their packets to the hundreds of Internet service providers in the US with who serve limited areas, there is a fairly widespread belief that Comcast should provide packet carriage for free to anyone who can directly connect to their network. A corollary to the belief about free carriage is a belief that this deal changes the Internet or makes network neutrality irrelevant. These kinds of arrangements -- known as “paid peering” -- have been going on since the days of AOL, but have become more prominent since the rise of video streaming. The bottom line to American consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs is whether paid peering is harmful to their long-term interests, not whether it violates any obscure and poorly reasoned principles such as net neutrality. Commercial interconnect deals have NOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY. Implying otherwise shows a complete lack of regard in understanding how traffic is and has been exchanged across networks for the past twenty years. These companies need to interconnect where their pipes are fattest and most numerous, close to both server resources and eyeballs. There’s no better way to ensure this happens than by making a formal deal and paying some money. And make no mistake, no matter how much Netflix is paying Comcast to deliver its TV shows, it will still cost Comcast much, much more to deliver them from their points of interconnection to its end users. And I doubt Comcast’s return on assets, share price growth, and annual growth rate will match those of Netflix any time soon. So take it easy, it’s not the end of the Internet or even a new chapter: this really is business as usual, the kind of arrangement that Internet firms have to make when traffic becomes concentrated in a few hands.
benton.org/node/175290 | American Enterprise Institute
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COASE, NET NEUTRALITY AND NETFLIX
[SOURCE: Digitopoly, AUTHOR: Joshua Gans]
[Commentary] Comcast and Netflix have come to a deal on ‘peering.’ Basically, what this means is that Netflix will pay Comcast to ensure that Netflix’s customers get good Internet service for Netflix. While apparently, Netflix is not getting special treatment under the deal, as we economists all know, it is what not having a deal would have done that has driven this. So while the deal itself may be ‘neutral,’ the counterfactual (without the deal) may well not have. Of course, that counterfactual could also have involved Netflix complaining with regard to the proposed Comcast-Time Warner merger and so ‘who is paying who’ is perhaps a little less clear here. (Note also that my statements here are no different given that Netflix may just be substituting Comcast for another provider in accessing Comcast customers; the issue is not so much that but whether there is something ‘special’ in the Comcast-Netflix arrangement that may not have happened without the arrangement).
benton.org/node/175289 | Digitopoly
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

VERIZON: HEAVY WEB USERS SHOULD PAY MORE
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Grant Gross]
Heavy broadband users should help shoulder the cost of their traffic, but Verizon Communications does not give preferential treatment to some Web traffic, said Verizon Chairman and CEO Lowell McAdam. Verizon has had its own interconnection discussions with Netflix related to increasing the video provider's traffic speeds on the broadband carrier's networks, McAdam said. The Comcast and Netflix deal shows "the commercial markets can come to agreement on these to make sure the investments keep flowing," McAdam said. McAdam addressed the Federal Communications Commission's proposed network neutrality rules about Vodafone's 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless. The FCC's move to resurrect net neutrality rules should provide "clarity" for the broadband industry, said McAdam, whose company successfully challenged an old version of the regulations in court. McAdam dismissed concerns that his company would selectively block or slow some Web content. But McAdam suggested that broadband power users should pay extra. "It's only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy," he said. "That is the most important concept of Net neutrality." The FCC needs to look at the broad Internet industry, not just broadband providers, when it considers new net neutrality rules, McAdam said. Companies like Netflix, Apple, Microsoft and Google have a role, and "any rules will have to include all of these players," he said.
benton.org/node/175302 | IDG News Service | CNBC | Multichannel News | The Verge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX BUYING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: David Lazarus]
[Commentary] Netflix is paying cable giant Comcast a pile of cash for what the companies say will be "no preferential network treatment." Sure, because corporations routinely give money to one another just for the fun of it. The reality is that Netflix is handing Comcast an unspecified chunk of change, likely millions of dollars, for what they say is a "more direct connection" to the cable company's broadband network. That's preferential treatment. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. The deal has broad ramifications for consumers. First, it could place the cost of Netflix's bandwidth-hogging service on the shoulders of Netflix subscribers, who will presumably see their rates rise to accommodate the payoff to Comcast. Secondly, it demonstrates the growing muscle of network owners such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T and Verizon -- companies that are the gatekeepers of broadband Internet access. These telecom behemoths are beginning to use their market power to extract hefty sums from content providers desiring extra-zippy access to their networks. And never mind that this is completely contrary to how federal regulators say things are supposed to work. "This agreement is in no sense the outcome of a free market," said Craig Aaron, president of the digital rights group Free Press. "This isn't voluntary. This is Comcast having Netflix over a barrel."
benton.org/node/175348 | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NETFLIX, COMCAST AND NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: John Shinal]
[Commentary] The network-sharing agreement between Comcast and Netflix has likely buried the idea that providers of high-speed Internet connections into US homes have to take into account anything but market forces when setting prices for their service. In other words, network neutrality is dead. Now that the largest cable provider, Comcast, and perhaps the largest user of consumer bandwidth in Netflix have struck a deal, any legislation or executive action to authorize new federal telecom rules will have very little momentum in Washington. The Comcast-Netflix agreement marks the end of the concept of an open or free Internet and presages a more-competitive landscape for digital entertainment and information. Look for more mergers and acquisitions such as Comcast's proposed offer for Time Warner Cable. Any cable provider, phone company, wireless operator or satellite provider owns a network that can now be used to provide digital entertainment to consumers in a less-regulated market. Investment usually follows such deregulation, so it's easy to see more deals that will tie up wireless and satellite providers, or tech and telecom firms and assets. Deregulated markets usually lead to lower prices in the long term, but only where there is full-blown market-based competition. And since the U.S. Internet services market is built on top of the US telecom infrastructure, more than half the country has access to either high-speed cable Internet or phone-based DSL service, but not both.
benton.org/node/175347 | USAToday
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CLEARER PICTURE OF COMCAST-NETFLIX
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Michael Liedtke]
[Commentary] Now that Netflix has relented to Comcast, the largest US broadband service, similar deals are more likely to be reached with other Internet providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Charter. Here's a closer look at what this shift means for subscribers to Netflix and high-speed Internet services:
Netflix subscribers relying on Comcast should already be seeing fewer interruptions as video streams over the network. The quality of the picture should be better, too. The improvements started to appear Thursday when Comcast and Netflix began working together, though their collaboration wasn't revealed until Sunday. Some analysts believe the alliance might set the stage for Comcast to eventually include an application for Netflix's service on its cable-TV boxes, making it even more accessible. If the claims of better performance are true, it would reverse how Netflix's video had been performing on Comcast's Internet service -- the average speed during prime-time viewing hours fell 25 percent from January 2013 to this January, based on Netflix's own measurements.
benton.org/node/175346 | Associated Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

DANGER OF NETFLIX-COMCAST DEAL
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Netflix, the country's leading online video service, has agreed to directly pay Comcast, the country's largest provider of home Internet access, to deliver its streaming movies and TV shows. It seems unlikely that either company could be a real loser -- Netflix, concerned about the pauses and hiccups that streaming customers are getting, can rest easy that it's bought more reliability for its content delivery, and Comcast gets, well, money. The real losers, consumer advocates fear, may be the rest of us. They're right to be afraid - although for a different reason than they might believe. The Netflix deal doesn't violate net neutrality principles. Netflix was already paying Internet middlemen to deliver its content to Comcast and other Internet service providers. These companies, like Limelight, Level 3 and EdgeCast, also deliver content to Internet service providers from other big content companies like Disney, Fox and others. But as Netflix has gotten bigger (traffic to Netflix drove one-third of peak Internet data usage in the U.S. in 2012), Internet congestion has slowed everything down for its subscribers. Now that Comcast has come through with the right price, Netflix may make similar deals with other providers. This may not be a bad thing - if the providers can supply Netflix with greater reliability at a decent price, the consumers may actually benefit in the short term. But in the long term, consumers will only suffer because of the growing market domination of Comcast.
benton.org/node/175345 | San Francisco Chronicle
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WHATSAPP PHONE CALLS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Mark Scott]
WhatsApp will start offering free voice services later this year -- diversifying beyond its main messaging service into phone calls. Speaking at the Mobile World Congress conference in Barcelona, the tech company’s chief executive, Jan Koum, said users in the second quarter would be able to make Internet calls through their smartphones similar to services that are already available on rival Internet messaging offerings like Kakao of South Korea and Viber of Cyprus. WhatsApp’s voice service is expected to be available first on Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS operating systems, then expand to others like Windows Phone and Blackberry, he added. Koum, who was born in Ukraine before moving to the United States as a teenager, also said that WhatsApp would launch a mobile brand in a partnership with the German cellphone carrier E-Plus.
benton.org/node/175325 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOOGLE’S FIBER PUSH
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Roben Farzad]
Google, which has market capitalization of about $405 billion (plus $60 billion in cash), just announced it's expanding its fiber network rollout, which Netflix consistently clocks as the speediest in the sector. Google Fiber claims to be 100 times faster than the typical household broadband connection -- good enough to download an entire HD flick in half a minute. The cost of a full nationwide rollout of Google Fiber could well hit $140 billion, according to Goldman Sachs estimates. By comparison, Google made $2.26 billion in the way of capital expenditures -- mostly for production equipment, data-center construction and real estate purchases -- in its latest quarter. To hedge its cost commitments, Google is asking (coaching, even) municipalities for infrastructure blueprints and streamlined construction plans. Jonathan Atkin, a telecom analyst with RBC Capital Markets, believes the media giant is talking big fiber chiefly to send a message, especially in the wake of Comcast announcing its intention to take out Time Warner Cable. "I think they just want to keep vendors, distributors and regulators on their feet," he says, noting that the prospect of a content- and distribution-heavy Google would make consolidating cable companies think twice about impinging on network neutrality.
benton.org/node/175344 | San Francisco Chronicle
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES
[SOURCE: AdWeek, AUTHOR: Katy Bachman]
The Federal Communications Commission could be close to a long overdue review of media ownership rules come March, and there’s bad news for media owners: Early indications are that the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is likely to propose tightening them. Chairman Wheeler isn’t expected to loosen the rules but rather firm them up even more, which will no doubt bring strong opposition from TV broadcasters and newspapers, and will split any vote along party lines. First, Chairman Wheeler is expected to bend to public interest groups and make joint sales agreements between TV stations count as owned under current ownership rules. Stations that find themselves over the ownership limits would have 18 months to two years to unwind these agreements. There are JSAs in more than 100 mostly smaller markets. Broadcasters, who have all but given up trying to convince the FCC to loosen the long-standing limits on how many stations can be owned in a single market, are likely to appeal the JSA change, especially since the FCC has allowed them for 20 years.
benton.org/node/175343 | AdWeek
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMCAST-TWC REVIEW
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation, AUTHOR: Andrew Jay Schwartzman]
[Commentary] There has been a wave of commentary, most of it negative, about Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Many of the columns and op-eds call for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice to stop the deal, but few have explained the process by which such transactions are reviewed. There are two very different, but related, statutory schemes which apply to deals such as this. Even so, the two jurisdictional agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC), cooperate very closely, often attending each other’s meetings and sharing documents. It is nonetheless possible, but very unlikely, that one will okay the deal, while the other may not. Comcast, competitors, customers and the public interest community may disagree about many aspects of the proposed acquisition, but they will travel a long road together before the final outcome.
http://benton.org/node/175336
back to top

CHICAGO: A TEST OF COMCAST MERGER PROMISES
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Barbara Popovic]
[Commentary] The Chicago Committee on Finance will begin consideration of the 10-year renewal of Comcast's cable franchise in Chicago at its March 4, 2014 meeting in City Hall. CAN TV, the organization I represent, was founded by Chicago cable ordinance 30 years ago as the most significant public benefit to come out of cable franchising. Since that time, thousands of Chicago groups and residents annually take advantage of training, facilities and channel time to create programs at CAN TV on health, job opportunities, arts initiatives, education issues, and more. In fact, more local programs are on CAN TV each week than on Chicago's broadcast stations combined. CAN TV's future ability to serve the public will be determined by the outcome of the negotiations currently taking place between the City of Chicago and Comcast. It will be a clear indicator of Comcast's commitment to the local community, particularly with the Time Warner merger deal now in the pipeline.
benton.org/node/175349 | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMCAST-TIME WARNER MERGER SHOULD BE BLOCKED
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Comcast ranks dead last in the cable industry customer service ratings. Time Warner Cable is next to last. Excuse us for giggling when Comcast suggests a $45 billion megamerger of the two cable bullies is in the best interests of consumers. Unless they're arguing that eliminating one of the two worst cable providers in the business is good for America. Former Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps opposes the merger, saying that it's the FCC's job to protect the public interest. The airwaves "are a public resource,'' he said. "No business, no individual, actually owns them." The Department of Justice and FCC should nix this turkey, which would hand a behemoth a full 40 percent of the Internet market and about 30 percent of the overall cable subscriber base. Despite solid evidence that the deal would diminish competition and damage customer satisfaction, it's anybody's guess whether the FCC will have the courage to nix the merger. Comcast spent $18 million lobbying in Washington in 2013. It reportedly hosted a $1 million fundraiser for President Obama in 2011.
benton.org/node/175255 | San Jose Mercury News
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

SPECTRUM/WIRELESS

WHITE HOUSE SEEKS HELP RECLAIMING SPECTRUM
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
In the treasure hunt that is the search for more spectrum, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration has discovered something of a mother lode: Namely, over 400 MHz of spectrum now in government hands that could potentially be freed up. The question is, how? And the White House is now pushing a method forward in a move that could appease hungry cable operators and help the cause of broadcasters. The White House wants input on which, or which combination, of at least nine different approaches will work to incentivize, or require, federal spectrum users -- the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense among them -- to give up spectrum for wireless broadband. Cable operators are among those pushing for more of it, including through a newly created coalition, WiFi Forward, which wants to goose the government effort to free up the 400 MHz the NTIA has identified. Broadcasters will benefit as well, since the more spectrum the government can get from its own, the less pressure there is -- or should be -- to get it from broadcasters.
benton.org/node/175316 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION/RADIO

BROADCASTING AND THE ECONOMY
[SOURCE: National Association of Broadcasters, AUTHOR: Press release]}
The local commercial broadcast television and radio industry contributes $1.24 trillion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 2.65 million jobs to the American economy annually, found a new study by Woods & Poole Economics with support from BIA/Kelsey. The analysis, which breaks down broadcasters' influence on the economy of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, concluded that both television and local radio broadcasting's economic impact will continue to grow in the coming years. The analysis found that direct employment from local commercial broadcasting, which includes jobs at local television and radio stations as well as in advertising and programming, is estimated at more than 313,000 jobs, generating more than $55 billion annually in economic impact. Broadcast television accounts for over 188,000 of these jobs, as well as over $32 billion in GDP, while broadcast radio contributes 125,000 jobs that result in almost $23 billion in GDP.
benton.org/node/175293 | National Association of Broadcasters | B&C
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

DIVERSITY

COVERAGE OF THE OLYMPICS
[SOURCE: Columbia Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Sarah Laskow]
[Commentary] For every Olympics since 1994’s Lillehammer Games, Andy Billings has broken down how much time the primetime broadcast spends covering male athletes and female athletes. Usually, men get significantly more of the clock time. But when Billings, who directs the University of Alabama’s sports communications program, and his collaborators ran an initial data-crunch on the first week of the Sochi Olympics, NBC’s coverage was looking more equitable. Through Valentine’s Day, NBC spent 47.6 percent its time covering men and 37.6 percent of its time covering women, with the remainder going to pair sports, like ice dancing. That counts as an improvement. “It’s a 10-percent gap favoring male athletes, which is smaller than normal,” said Billings. At the last winter Olympics, in Vancouver, the gap was 20 percent. By the end of the two weeks, the gap had narrowed even further: Men got 45.4 percent of clock time, women 41.4 percent, and pairs 13.2 percent. Normally, the US sports media spends -- if we’re being generous -- less than 5 percent of its time covering women in sports. Sociologists Cheryl Cooky and Michael Messner have been conducting a longitudinal “Gender in Televised Sports” study, and in 2009 they found that during a six-week sample, ESPN’s Sports Center spent 1.4 percent of its time on women, and three local affiliates dedicated 1.6 percent of their sports coverage to female athletes. This was “the lowest proportion ever recorded” in the study, but even the record highs were unimpressive—8.7 percent in 1999; 6.3 percent in 2004.
benton.org/node/175295 | Columbia Journalism Review
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CAN EARLY COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION BOOST NUMBER OF WOMEN IN TECH?
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Mike Cassidy]
Even as women have made big strides in once-male-dominated professions such as law and medicine, they've been left far behind when it comes to computer science, a lucrative discipline that is the primary driver of the 21st century economy. The latest US Department of Education figures from 2011 put the number of computer science degrees awarded to women at 17.6 percent. All of which helps explain why women hold less than one quarter of computing jobs in the country, according to an analysis by the Anita Borg Institute. Those who have studied the issue are reluctant to identify one culprit in what is a tangle of political, social, educational and personal considerations. But after talking to dozens of researchers, academics, technologists, educators and students, it is evident that the nation's education system, from kindergarten through college, simply has not lived up to the task of sufficiently encouraging women to pursue courses and careers in computer science. What would encouragement and exposure look like? Harvey Mudd College, a small liberal arts school in Claremont, created an introductory course specifically for students without programming experience. They emphasized coding's connection to other disciplines. They paid for freshman women to attend the annual Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, a chance to meet programming role models in diverse fields. And they provided early research opportunities for women students to inspire them to stick with the field. The result? The percentage of female computer science majors at Harvey Mudd increased from about 10 percent before the initiatives to 43 percent today.
benton.org/node/175254 | San Jose Mercury News
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BOOK REVIEW BYLINES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Julie Bosman]
Reading a book review in a well-known periodical? Chances are, the byline belongs to a man. In its annual count of male and female bylines in book reviews, magazines and literary journals, VIDA, a women’s literary organization, revealed that in 2013, the publications still largely favored men over women. At The New York Review of Books, there were 212 male book reviewers and 52 female; at The Atlantic, there were 14 male book reviewers and three female; at Harper’s, there were 24 male book reviewers and 10 female.
benton.org/node/175259 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

LOBBYING

IS THE FCC STILL TRYING TO STIFLE POLITICAL SPEECH?
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Lawrence Spiwak]
[Commentary] As a result of tremendous public outrage, the Federal Communications Commission was forced to walk back its “Critical Information Needs” or “CIN” Study. Unfortunately, I regret to say that the CIN Study is not an isolated incident. In the midst of the CIN Study debacle, the FCC released a document compiled at FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s instructions entitled Staff Working Group Report on Process Reform. Buried deep inside this Report is Recommendation 5.44, which proposes to require everyone filing comments at the FCC -- from advocacy groups to academic institutions -- to disclose any direct and indirect financial support they may receive “from industry.” According to this recommendation, such a rule is necessary because: “In most cases, a filer’s motives are apparent, but sometimes they are hidden. For instance, an organization purporting to represent consumer interests may actually represent industry, or may be influenced by industry contributions.” Thus, reasons the report, the implementation of such a rule will permit the agency to “evaluate the credibility of factual and policy arguments by knowing who is making them.” (Emphasis supplied.) This statement is a naked admission by the FCC that it does not intend to evaluate the merits of the arguments before it, but that the agency will assess the “credibility of … arguments” based on “who is making them” and, thus, the filer’s presumed “motives.” [Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]
benton.org/node/175333 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

THE EVOLUTION OF THE TWITTER REVOLUTION
[SOURCE: nextgov, AUTHOR: Joseph Marks]
[Commentary] Perhaps the most important and consistent observation about the role social media plays in global protest movements is that it isn’t static; it evolves just as the movements and the media themselves do, analysts said. Whenever Twitter and other social networks appear to have played a defining role in a protest or revolutionary movement -- from Iran to Egypt to Turkey to Ukraine -- there’s typically been a succeeding narrative that says it was less influential than it seemed at the time or functioned in a different manner. While these analyses are often valid, said Joshua Tucker, a New York University politics professor who’s studying social media’s role in the protests in Ukraine, they ignore a larger lesson: that social media as an organizing and broadcasting tool is growing with each protest movement and shows no sign of slowing. “It’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine protests that don’t utilize social media,” he said. “If you want to understand protests moving forward -- what leads to protests, the dynamics of protests -- you have to get a handle on how social media impacts protesters.”
benton.org/node/175328 | nextgov
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

JOURNALISM

THE FCC'S JOURNALISM FIASCO
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Rem Rieder]
[Commentary] One of the messy things about a free press is that you might not always like what it's reporting. If you're a liberal, Fox News drives you crazy. If you're a conservative, you're not a big fan of MSNBC. If you're an NPR buff, you're appalled when spasms of Biebermania occur elsewhere. OK, so you get upset. Or change the channel. Or click on something else. But the fact that you aren't going to love everything you encounter goes with the territory. Which brings us to the Federal Communications Commission and its misguided plan to stick its unwelcome nose into the newsrooms of America and explore how journalists are doing their jobs. The FCC decided in its infinite wisdom that it would be a good idea to launch something called a Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs. Fortunately, the FCC, under heavy fire -- particularly in the conservative media and on Capitol Hill -- for this boneheaded, intrusive initiative, is now in full retreat mode. FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson ran up the white flag. She said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler "agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required." Now he noticed. But that's hardly reassuring. Such an enterprise shouldn't have gotten off the ground. And who knows what would have happened if an FCC commissioner who opposed the study, Ajit Pai, hadn't gone public with a Wall Street Journal op-ed. That's what galvanized the flurry of attention that doomed the ill-advised initiative.
benton.org/node/175334 | USAToday
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

WHY AT&T’S SURVEILLANCE REPORT OMITS 80 MILLION NSA TARGETS
[SOURCE: Wired, AUTHOR: David Kravets]
AT&T released for the first time in the phone company’s 140-year history a rough accounting of how often the US government secretly demands records on telephone customers. But to those who’ve been following the National Security Agency leaks, Ma Bell’s numbers come up short by more than 80 million spied-upon Americans. AT&T’s transparency report counts 301,816 total requests for information -- spread between subpoenas, court orders and search warrants -- in 2013. That includes between 2,000 and 4,000 under the category “national security demands,” which collectively gathered information on about 39,000 to 42,000 different accounts. There was a time when that number would have seemed high. Today, it’s suspiciously low, given the disclosures by whistleblower Edward Snowden about the National Security Agency’s bulk metadata program. We now know that the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is ordering the major telecoms to provide the NSA a firehose of metadata covering every phone call that crosses their networks. An accurate transparency report should include a line indicating that AT&T has turned over information on each and every one of its more than 80 million-plus customers. It doesn’t.
benton.org/node/175324 | Wired
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

February 2014

ACA: DOJ Filing Should Signal Attribution Determination For Joint Retransmission

Butler Reiterates: Most Noncommercials Not Giving Up Spectrum

Sports Fan Coalition: Sports Exec Alleges NFL Pressured Broadcasters To Buy Tickets

Marc Andreessen says more net neutrality laws are not the answer

Europe: We don’t know what 5G is yet, but we’re damn sure going to lead the way with it

Pentagon Wants To Share Spectrum With Broadband Providers, Not Auction It

Mobidia: US LTE Subscribers Reach Nearly 100 Million

Comcast, Netflix prove the Internet is working

February 25, 2014 (More one Netflix-Comcast and Comcast-TWC)

Here’s How The Government Handles A Deal Like Comcast/Time Warner Cable