April 28, 2014 (Net Neutrality; Surveillance; Cellphone Searches)
"If you really care about this, just bite the bullet. They're not going to abolish the FCC over this, and they can't impeach you."
-- Harold Feld of Public Knowledge on reclassification http://benton.org/node/182167
"Any net neutrality proposal must ensure the same quality access to online educational content as to entertainment and other commercial offerings. We need to ensure that the Internet remains a medium for opportunity not just an opportunity for Internet providers to increase profits."
-- Amina Fazlullah, Benton Foundation http://benton.org/node/182169
BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014
This week’s agenda http://benton.org/calendar/2014-04-27--P1W/
SPECTRUM/WIRELESS
Ensuring A Fair And Competitive Incentive Auction - press release
No airwaves for you! Verizon, AT&T will face bidding limits in incentive auction [links to web]
AT&T Backs Down From Threat of Boycotting TV Airwaves Auction [links to web]
Three Ways Mesh Networks with Peer-to-Peer Connections Can Revolutionize Communications (without the Internet) - analysis
CTIA: NTIA Should Get Out Of Spectrum Management Business
JD Power: Buyers are Paying More Attention to Smartphone Pricing [links to web]
Forget speed, T-Mobile has started building a more resilient LTE network [links to web]
CPB urges FCC to preserve public TV coverage in spectrum auction [links to web]
NETWORK NEUTRALITY
4 no-bull facts you need to know about the FCC's Net neutrality proposal - analysis
Schools Could Be on Internet 'Slow Track' Under Proposed FCC Rules
Rep Blackburn To FCC: Do Cost/Benefit Analysis of Net Neutrality Rules [links to web]
Netflix researching “large-scale peer-to-peer technology” for streaming [links to web]
Net Neutrality: We Need a Better Deal - editorial
The FCC Caved on Net Neutrality. But It Didn't Really Have a Choice. - analysis
FCC’s Tom Wheeler Says His Proposal Will Protect Net Neutrality. Here’s Why It Won’t. - analysis
The FCC Changed Course on Network Neutrality. Here is Why You Should Care - Barbara van Schewick analysis
Does Anyone Like the FCC’s Proposed Net Neutrality Rules?
Forget fast lanes. The real threat for network neutrality is zero-rated content - op-ed
The FCC’s new net neutrality rules will kill Aereo, even if the Supreme Court doesn’t - analysis
The Wire Next Time - op-ed
The FCC is about to axe-murder net neutrality. Don't get mad -- get even - op-ed
MORE ON INTERNET/BROADBAND
The Web Is Not Actually Getting Any More Global
Russia, Cuba oppose Internet control, surveillance agreement
OWNERSHIP
Comcast downsizes in Charter deal
Appeals Court Ruling Complicates End of Apple v. Samsung, but Jury Still Expected to Decide Case Next Week [links to web]
TELEVISION
Aereo’s Supreme Court case balances innovation and copyright - editorial
New Challenges Chip Away at Cable’s Pillar of Profit - analysis
CPB urges FCC to preserve public TV coverage in spectrum auction [links to web]
A Primer on Political Speech and Broadcasting - Andrew Jay Schwartzman analysis
DIVERSITY
The Media Has a Woman Problem - op-ed
CodeBabes: the latest thing to make women in tech cringe [links to web]
Can A TV Show Get Girls More Into Tech? [links to web]
PRIVACY/SECURITY
Discrimination potential seen in ‘big data’ use
Flaw found in Internet Explorer browser [links to web]
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Surveillance court rejected Verizon challenge to NSA calls program
Low-level federal judges balking at law enforcement requests for electronic evidence
Russia, Cuba oppose Internet control, surveillance agreement
Supreme Court Taking Up Police Searches of Data Troves Known as Cellphones
Justice Scalia set to play key role in Supreme Court smartphone case [links to web]
Smartphones and the 4th Amendment - NYTimes editorial [links to web]
Supreme Court should outlaw warrantless smartphone searches - SJ Mercury News editorial [links to web]
Governments Grab for the Web - editorial
US Says It Built Digital Programs Abroad With an Eye to Politics
Despite Twitter Backlash, New York Police Dept. Plans to Expand Social Media Efforts [links to web]
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Are You Ready for a Driver’s License for the Internet? [links to web]
LOBBYING
Big Tech tracks are all over DC patent war [links to web]
POLICYMAKERS
Rep Anna Eshoo taps into Silicon Valley ties to seek key position
Meet the Tech-Savviest Legislators in the US [links to web]
In Baker, CTIA Gets a Spectrum Czar -- and at a Crucial Time [links to web]
A dropbox for all that data from the Internet of Things [links to web]
Justice Scalia set to play key role in Supreme Court smartphone case [links to web]
COMPANY NEWS
How Amazon is muscling into entertainment [links to web]
STORIES FROM ABROAD
Russia, Cuba oppose Internet control, surveillance agreement
New York Times strikes a blow to China’s efforts at censorship - editorial [links to web]
China Forces Four US TV Shows Off Web [links to web]
The War on Truth in Ukraine - op-ed [links to web]
MORE ONLINE
E-Labeling Deserves Serious Consideration - FCC Commissioner O'Rielly [links to web]
By Digitizing Images, Museum Opens a Window Into the Past [links to web]
SPECTRUM/WIRELESS
ENSURING A FAIR AND COMPETITVE INCENTIVE AUCTION
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler]
Next year the FCC will conduct the first-ever “Incentive Auction,” which will harness market forces to reallocate valuable low-band (below 1 GHz) spectrum from television broadcasters who voluntarily choose to relinquish their channels in exchange for incentive payments, to wireless providers who will bid against each other to buy those frequencies to provide mobile broadband services. Two national carriers control the vast majority of that low-band spectrum. This disparity makes it difficult for rural consumers to have access to the competition and choice that would be available if more wireless competitors also had access to low-band spectrum. It also creates challenges for consumers in urban environments who sometimes have difficulty using their mobile phones at home or in their offices. To address this problem, and to prevent one or two wireless providers from being able to run the table at the auction, I have proposed a market based reserve for the auction. Any party desiring to bid on any license area will be free to do so. When the Incentive Auction commences, all bidders will be bidding and competing against each other for all blocks of spectrum. We expect a fulsome bidding process. There will be no “reserved” spectrum during this initial stage of the auction. When the auction reaches a “trigger” point that the Commission will set in advance of the auction – largely based on meeting a price threshold – wireless providers with a dominant low-band position in a license area will be constrained from bidding on a few “reserved” spectrum blocks. The exact amount of “reserved” spectrum available will depend on how much spectrum non-dominant providers are actively bidding for at the trigger point, but in no instance will the reserve exceed 30 megahertz. Those “reserve-eligible” bidders who are still actively bidding at the trigger point will then begin bidding for reserved spectrum against only other eligible bidders, and not against bidders who already hold a dominant low-band position in that license area.
benton.org/node/181947 | Federal Communications Commission | The Hill | telecompetitor
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
THREE WAYS MESH NETWORKS WITH PEER-TO-PEER CONNECTIONS CAN REVOLUTIONIZE COMMUNICATIONS (WITHOUT THE INTERNET)
[SOURCE: Brookings, AUTHOR: Joshua Bleiberg, Darrell West]
Imagine a mobile application where you can share messages and photos with other users, but without an Internet connection. These applications take advantage of mesh networking. In a mesh network devices use Bluetooth peer-to-peer connections and Wi-Fi networks to communicate “off the grid“. Engineers originally developed the technology for the military. Over the years small scale projects have found varying levels of success but few have broken through to the mainstream. The newest version of iOS has incorporated mesh networks into its operating system, which allows developers to create applications that take advantage of this technology without having to reinvent the wheel. Beyond messaging applications, mesh networks have the potential to make hard-wired Internet devices obsolete. Mesh networking has a number of policy implications. Here are a few that TechTank will look out for in the future:
Natural Disasters
Promoting Democracy and Activism
Expanding Connectivity Benefits to Rural Areas
benton.org/node/181807 | Brookings
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
CTIA: NTIA SHOULD GET OUT OF SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT BUSINESS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Wireless companies told the House Commerce Committee that the National Telecommunications & Information Administration should get out of the spectrum management business. Currently, the Federal Communications Commission and NTIA divvy up those duties, with the FCC overseeing commercial spectrum and NTIA government spectrum. In comments to the committee in response to a white paper on spectrum management, CTIA: The Wireless Association said that FCC and NTIA have to coordinate with each other, their spectrum management has been "inconsistent." "In order to overcome these duplications and inefficiencies, a single entity should be responsible for spectrum policy (establishing national spectrum goals and strategies) and implementation authority (licensing spectrum use)," CTIA says. NTIA would not be cut out entirely. It is the President's chief communications policy advisor, and could continue in that role and advocate for spectrum on behalf of federal agencies.
CTIA put in a plug for licensed spectrum. Cable, by contrast, is pushing for as much unlicensed as can be freed up. That is because cable ops are boosting their mobile broadband play in competition to wireless via unlicensed spectrum that allows them to wire broadband subs on the go through hundreds of thousands of Wi-Fi hot spots.
benton.org/node/182107 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
NETWORK NEUTRALITY
4 NO-BULL FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY PROPOSAL
[SOURCE: InfoWorld, AUTHOR: Serdar Yegulalp]
[Commentary] No, the Federal Communications Commission's newly proposed rules for network neutrality don't spell the end of the Internet as we know it. But some of the concern about the proposed rules are valid, in big part because the rules don't address certain issues. Here are the four key takeaways you need to know:
Fast-lane charges stink, and the FCC knows it. On Feb 19, it released a statement saying it intended to revise the rules. Many of the changes involve issues of net neutrality that have come to the fore recently, such as state laws blocking the creation of municipal broadband or the arbitrary blocking of legal content.
The FCC is planning to do little about it in the short run. The FCC's open-ended, let's-see-what-happens approach means any regulation designed to protect consumers from arbitrarily tiered pricing will happen in the FCC's own sweet time.
The FCC may not do anything about back-end deals. When FCC officials were asked at a briefing whether deals like the Comcast/Netflix peering arrangement would come under scrutiny under the new rules, the short answer was no. The rules, in other words, are still focused on ISP-to-consumer connections, not arrangements between ISPs and content providers.
This potentially affects everyone.
benton.org/node/181926 | InfoWorld
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
SCHOOLS COULD BE ON INTERNET 'SLOW TRACK' UNDER PROPOSED FCC RULES
[SOURCE: Education Week, AUTHOR: Michele Molnar]
Questions arose about whether schools will have to stand in line for acceptable speeds of Internet access under proposed new rules floated by the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. FCC commissioners received the rules, in advance of a May 15 vote. As written, the proposed rules would impact "net neutrality," which refers to the open and free flow of content on the internet, regardless of where it originates. The new rules would leave an opening for broadband internet providers like Verizon Communications, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable, to give preferential treatment to content providers that pay for the privilege of higher priority service. For schools, the issue is problematic. Unless educational services are offered preferential treatment by providers, "schools could find themselves even further challenged to make use of digital learning tools and services," said Douglas Levin, executive director of the State Educational Technology Directors Association. The proposed rules could impact ed-tech companies, too. Larger ones might be well-positioned to pay for fast-lane service, while smaller ones and start-ups could find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, said Amina Fazlullah, policy director of the Benton Foundation, a Washington-based organization that works to ensure that media and telecommunications serve the public interest. "Any net neutrality proposal must ensure the same quality access to online educational content as to entertainment and other commercial offerings," Fazlullah wrote. "We need to ensure that the Internet remains a medium for opportunity not just an opportunity for Internet providers to increase profits."
benton.org/node/181835 | Education Week
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
BITTORRENT: NETFLIX SHOULD DEFEAT ISPS BY SWITCHING TO PEER-TO-PEER
[SOURCE: BitTorrent Blog, AUTHOR: Eric Klinker]
Peer-to-peer architecture can re-architecture the Web for equality. Netflix could make use of this technology. The Federal Communications Commission is on track to endorse pay-for-play arrangements in which Web services like video streaming and voice-over Internet protocol (VoIP) could pay Internet service providers (ISPs) for a faster path to consumers than other services receive. This is by its very definition discrimination. We have fundamentally wronged the Internet. But also, for a decade now: we were doing it wrong. The FCC is regulating what code did not. The architecture of the Internet is not built for 21st century content consumption. And now we are paying the price. Broadly speaking, this re-imagined Internet is often called Content Centric Networking. The closest working example we have to a Content Centric Network today is BitTorrent. What if heavy bandwidth users, say, Netflix, for example, worked more like BitTorrent? If they did, each stream -- each piece of content -- would have a unique address, and would be streamed peer-to-peer. That means that Netflix traffic would no longer be coming from one or two places that are easy to block. Instead, it would be coming from everywhere, all at once; from addresses that were not easily identified as Netflix addresses -- from addresses all across the Internet. To the ISP, they are simply zeroes and ones. All equal. [Klinker is CEO BitTorrent]
benton.org/node/181817 | BitTorrent | ars technica
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
THE FCC CAVED ON NET NEUTRALITY. BUT IT DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE.
[SOURCE: National Journal, AUTHOR: Brendan Sasso]
Consumer-advocacy groups and liberal lawmakers are going ballistic over news that the Federal Communications Commission plans to advance watered-down network neutrality rules. The new regulations would allow Internet service providers to charge websites for special "fast lanes" in at least some cases. But the truth is that the FCC is boxed into a corner without many good options. Commission officials argue the stronger rules that advocates want probably wouldn't survive in court. Consumer groups have a simple solution for the FCC's dilemma: reclassify broadband providers as common carriers. That move would likely allow the FCC to just reinstate the old rules and ban websites from paying for faster service. But reclassification has much bigger implications than just net neutrality. The FCC would be applying a massive regulatory regime currently used for phone companies on broadband providers. It's debatable whether it's a politically viable option. Congressional Republicans and business groups would launch an all-out war, warning the FCC could kill the Internet economy. Reclassification could derail the other items on Chairman Wheeler's agenda, such as an auction of airwave licenses, a network technology transition, and the president's proposal to improve Internet access in schools. But consumer groups argue that protecting an open Internet is worth the fight.
benton.org/node/181843 | National Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER SAYS HIS PROPOSAL WILL PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY. HERE’S WHY IT WON’T.
[SOURCE: Free Press, AUTHOR: Derek Turner]
[Commentary] Press reports indicate that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler will propose new Open Internet rules that would allow Internet service providers to implement so-called paid-priority schemes. These would allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to charge extra fees to content companies to guarantee their content reaches end-users ahead of those that don’t pay. The proposal would also allow ISPs to favor their own content. Chairman Wheeler insists his proposal would “restore the concepts of Net Neutrality.” He stated that the court “made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be ‘commercially reasonable.’ Acting within the constraints of the Court’s decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is ‘commercially reasonable.’” But the judges were pretty clear here: Unless the FCC reclassifies ISPs as common carriers, it can’t impose any rules that stop ISPs from discriminating against content or favoring their own content. Chairman Wheeler’s post ends with a promise that his rules will not permit ISPs to favor their own content. But nowhere in the legal history is there any suggestion that such moves would run afoul of the “commercially reasonable” standard. What’s more commercially reasonable than a company looking out for its own best interests? Nowhere in his post does Chairman Wheeler suggest that his rules will bar paid prioritization. And unless the FCC reclassifies ISPs as common carriers, it can’t legally prohibit this practice. So instead of fighting for real Net Neutrality, the FCC instead has chosen to bless online discrimination.
benton.org/node/181829 | Free Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
THE FCC CHANGED COURSE ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY.
[SOURCE: Center for Internet and Society, AUTHOR: Barbara van Schewick]
[Commentary] In an ex parte letter to the Federal Communications Commission, I called on the FCC to seriously explore all available jurisdictional options for adopting network neutrality rules and to include real questions on reclassification in the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The filing makes four points:
Allowing access fees is a significant reversal from the FCC's earlier policies as set forth in the Open Internet Order.
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to allow access fees.
Allowing access fees is bad policy.
If the FCC is serious about protecting the Open Internet, it needs to start asking real questions about reclassification in its upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
benton.org/node/182122 | Center for Internet and Society
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
DOES ANYONE LIKE PROPOSAL
[SOURCE: Revere Digital, AUTHOR: Amy Schatz]
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s newly proposed rules to police Internet lines won’t even be released until May, and they’re already looking like a political orphan. Internet activists and key Democratic lawmakers have panned Wheeler’s proposal, which would let Internet service providers sell “express lanes” to Internet content providers willing to pay a premium, even as his aides struggled to explain it. A New York Times editorial blasted Wheeler’s proposal, while a petition asking the White House to stop the FCC attracted more than 14,000 signatures in less than 24 hours. The problem facing Wheeler is simple. Republicans have never liked net neutrality regulation; they feel it’s unnecessary because there have been very few complaints. Democrats, who have consistently supported net neutrality, don’t like this proposal because they object to letting content providers pay for priority delivery.
benton.org/node/182121 | Revere Digital | The Hill
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
ZERO-RATED CONTENT
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Antonios Drossos]
[Commentary] The network neutrality provisions adopted by the European Parliament ruled that specialized services like “fast lanes” can’t be used by telcos to the detriment of the availability or quality of Internet access services. On the other side of the Atlantic, Americans are less fortunate. The Federal Communications Commission said that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers. This is the price the US pays for delegating such crucial policy decisions to an unelected ex-lobbyist rather than delegating to Congress. Meanwhile, the open internet isn’t safe yet in Europe: The Council hasn’t spoken and the devil is in the details. According to Digital Fuel Monitor data, eight incumbent telcos are sabotaging net neutrality with an orchestrated launch of “zero-rated” apps over their mobile networks in nine European Union markets. This means they’re favoring their own or their over-the-top partners’ apps by “zero-rating” the data volume -- not counting it against the end user’s data volume allowance. Zero-rated mobile traffic doesn’t need to be delivered at higher speeds and with a higher quality of service, nor does it need to be prioritized. The European Parliament must, on its second reading, adopt provisions that explicitly prohibit the practice. The U.S. should not go down the slippery road and allow the creation of a two-tier internet. Like the EU, it should ensure that fast lanes are not used to the detriment of open internet access, and should ban zero-rating. [Drossos is a managing partner at Rewheel]
benton.org/node/182119 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
THE FCC’S NEW NET NEUTRALITY RULES WILL KILL AEREO, EVEN IF THE SUPREME COURT DOESN’T
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung]
[Commentary] We heard a lot about Aereo, the startup that could upend the television business if it survives a Supreme Court battle with television broadcasters. But even if it squeaks past the court's technologically challenged justices, it might not matter -- the company is still likely doomed. Here's why. At heart, Aereo is an Internet company that operates on Internet pipes and serves Internet customers. Yes, the company's main business involves pulling broadcast TV signals out of the air. Critics say that practice violates copyright laws. But technologically, Aereo stores its customers' TV shows in an online, cloud-based locker. Then it sends those shows, on-demand, over the Internet to its subscribers' waiting PCs, tablets and mobile phones. Incidentally, that makes Aereo subject to the Federal Communications Commission's new rules on network neutrality. If Aereo loses its Supreme Court bid, the show's over and the question becomes irrelevant. But if Aereo survives, then it would be living in a world filled with Internet fast lanes and paid prioritization.
benton.org/node/181820 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
THE WIRE NEXT TIME
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Susan Crawford]
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission proposal to allow Internet service providers to charge different rates to different online content companies -- effectively ending the government’s commitment to network neutrality -- set off a flurry of protest. The uproar is appropriate: In bowing before an onslaught of corporate lobbying, the commission has chosen short-term political expediency over the long-term interest of the country. But if this is the end of net neutrality as we know it, it is not the end of the line for fair and equitable Internet access. Indeed, the commission’s decision frees Americans to focus on a real long-term solution: supporting open municipal-level fiber networks. American cities need fast, cheap, ubiquitous, open fiber networks, and every city has the tools at its disposal to get these networks built. But there are powerful and well-funded incumbents who will fight any mayor brave enough to consider the idea. If you’re furious about your cable bill and worried about net neutrality, go tell city hall. [Crawford is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School]
benton.org/node/182151 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
THE FCC IS ABOUT TO AXE-MURDER NET NEUTRALITY. DON'T GET MAD -- GET EVEN
[SOURCE: The Guardian, AUTHOR: Dan Gillmor]
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission will say -- loud and proud – that it is fixing the open-web problem while actually letting it get worse, by providing a so-called "fast lane" for carriers to hike fees on sites trying to reach customers like you and me. Which, inevitably, would mean you and I start paying more to use those sites -- if we aren't already. If you live in America and believe in an open Internet, don't waste your time sinking into despair over politicians' betrayals. A little anger wouldn't hurt, but aiming it at the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler is pointless. Focus your attention on the people who he works for, and who allegedly work for you. Start with President Barack Obama, whose unequivocal vow as a candidate to support an open Internet was as empty as so many of his other promises, if not an outright lie. Then:
At the local level, push for community broadband networks, owned and operated by the public. (Waiting for Google Fiber? You might as well wait to win the lottery. Google is not your daddy, or your savior.)
The telecommunications cartel has frantically worked to get state legislatures to prevent them from existing in the first place. Tell your state legislators that this is an unacceptable intrusion on your community's right to govern itself.
Finally, tell your member of the US House of Representatives and your US senators that they have a job to do -- to ensure the future of innovation and free speech in a digital world. In particular, tell them that Internet access is a public utility and should be treated as such.
benton.org/node/181921 | Guardian, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
MORE ON INTERNET/BROADBAND
THE WEB IS NOT ACTUALLY GETTING ANY MORE GLOBAL
[SOURCE: Quartz, AUTHOR: Nikhil Sonnad]
“The Internet is creating a global community,” a thought leader probably said recently. But take a closer look at Internet traffic data, and the theory that the web is turning the world into a borderless digital utopia doesn’t hold up. There’s no question that Internet traffic in general is skyrocketing. And more of this data crosses borders than ever before. Global flows in a digital age, a report released by McKinsey Global Institute, attempts to quantify the circulation of three major types of “flows”: financial, human, and digital. Using data from TeleGeography, McKinsey estimates that the total transfer of data across borders has increased 20-fold from 2005 to 2012, from 2.2 trillion megabytes per second to over 41 trillion. This is a dramatic rise, no doubt, but a little context makes it clear that data flow -- or the growth of that flow -- is not inherently international. In fact, cross-border web traffic has barely kept up with the sum total of Internet activity. The vast majority of digital transactions are still domestic.
benton.org/node/181810 | Quartz
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
OWNERSHIP
COMCAST-CHARTER DEAL
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Mike Snider]
Comcast and Charter announced a divestiture plan that would take effect after the close of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger. Charter would acquire about 1.4 million of Time Warner Cable's current subscribers in a cash deal, boosting its customer base from 4.4 million to 5.7 million. Comcast and Charter will also swap about 1.6 million existing Time Warner Cable customers and 1.6 million Charter customers in a "tax-efficient like kind" exchange. After a tax-free reorganization, the "new" Charter will also acquire about 33% of a new Comcast-created and publicly-traded spin-off company with about 2.5 million current Comcast customers. Overall, these transactions, contingent on the approval of the merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the deals would result in Comcast divesting about 3.9 million customers. That would put Comcast's managed residential subscriber base below 30% of total cable TV subscribers in the U.S., the same market share the company had in past deals with Adelphia in 2006 and AT&T Broadband in 2002, Comcast says.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/04/28/comcast-charter-reach-deal...
Comcast and Charter Reach Agreement on Divestitures (press release)
benton.org/node/182148 | USAToday | press release
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
TELEVISION/RADIO
BALANCING INNOVATION AND COPYRIGHT
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] At the Supreme Court, some observers have noted, the Justices seemed flummoxed by the case of Aereo, a company that pulls network TV broadcasts off the airwaves and streams it to online users for a monthly fee. That is not because the court’s jurists are hopelessly incapable of considering its business model. It is because taking decades-old law and applying it to new technological reality is hard. The principles at stake, however, are much simpler. Aereo’s critics want to shore up the exclusive right of the people who own copyrights on programming to control -- and profit from -- the distribution of their work. Aereo benefits from the notion that the networks are allowed to send such programming over the public airwaves on the condition that anyone can view it for free. On principle, the balance should obviously favor consumers. There is no difference between getting network television for free with an antenna or doing so with an Internet connection that warrants different treatment of the two -- beyond accounting for the costs of the different sorts of infrastructure that makes each possible. The court has underscored that individuals have the right to put up antennas, record programs and use that material privately. The essence of Aereo’s case is that the firm provides the infrastructure -- antennas, recording space and streaming setup -- so that people do not have to bother with all of that on their own. Which makes sense. There is a chance, however, that the court will determine that the law does not leave enough room for that principle to survive.
benton.org/node/182127 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
CHALLENGES FOR CABLE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: David Carr]
[Commentary] For decades, cable television has been an almost magical source of profits, in large part because of the bundle, the packaging of channels that compels subscribers to buy a lot of programming they never watch. On April 22, that bundle seemed to be fraying on all fronts. The threat was most visible in the Supreme Court, but before we get to those august halls, it’s worth remembering that the bundle has been a robust generator of profits in all manner of industries. Every time you order a value meal at McDonald’s, you are ordering a bundle. You, um, benefit by getting a lot of food -- a container of French fries the size of your head -- and McDonald’s benefits by selling you more than you really wanted. My cable bill is the same way. I don’t watch Animal Planet or TruTV, but I pay for them as part of a package that includes the channels I do want. The cable industry books that inefficiency as profit. It is the lucrative lifeblood of the current entertainment business. Clearly, much is at stake in the current bundling arrangement, which has some powerful backers, but a future where consumers will be able to assemble an à la carte menu of entertainment suddenly seems much closer.
benton.org/node/182149 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
A PRIMER ON POLITICAL SPEECH AND BROADCASTING
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation, AUTHOR: Andrew Jay Schwartzman]
[Commentary] There is no speech more important than that of one citizen asking another for her vote. Congress has enacted a series of provisions addressing how broadcasters and cable operators treat candidates. With the 2014 primary season now under way, this is a good time to review those requirements. In the wake of Supreme Court rulings that have allowed far more money into the electoral process, the protections afforded by the measures discussed here are more important than ever. While equal treatment of candidates and increased disclosure and transparency will not stop ever greater political spending, these protections give important rights to candidates and allow the public some small degree of insight into how our democracy functions.
http://benton.org/node/181977
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
DIVERSITY
MEDIA’S GENDER PROBLEM
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Liza Mundy]
[Commentary] A new report by the Women’s Media Center found that male reporters still accounted for 63 percent of bylines in the nation’s top 10 papers and about the same proportion of newsroom staff. All but one of the individual winners of Pulitzer Prizes in journalism this year were male. Men’s dominance in the field tends to be highest in prestige or “hard” topics like politics, crime, business, technology and world affairs; women put up better numbers in “soft” subjects like education, lifestyle, culture and health. Male opinion columnists outnumber women by more than two to one at The Wall Street Journal, more than three to one at The Washington Post, and five to one at The New York Times. As for sports -- do you need to ask? Men also represent authority and expertise in more subtle ways. On the front page of The New York Times, the study noted, men were quoted three times more often than women. When women were writing the stories, the number of women quoted went up. What the report doesn’t answer is why this disparity persists, and why women are more equal in some sectors of journalism than in others. As journalism expands beyond institutional newsrooms, deals are more easily made out of sight. The same is true in science, where women are far less likely than men to be invited to join lucrative corporate scientific advisory boards. Doors can open. But new kinds of doors can be closed.
[Mundy is a program director at the New America Foundation]
benton.org/node/182116 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
PRIVACY/SECURITY
DISCRIMINATION AND BIG DATA
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Eileen Sullivan]
A White House review of how the government and private sector use large sets of data has found that such information could be used to discriminate against Americans on issues such as housing and employment even as it makes their lives easier in many ways. "Big data" is everywhere. It allows mapping apps to ping cellphones anonymously and determine, in real time, what roads are the most congested. But it also can be used to target economically vulnerable people. The issue came up during a 90-day review ordered by President Barack Obama, White House counselor John Podesta said. Podesta did not discuss all the findings, but said the potential for discrimination is an issue that warrants a closer look. Federal laws have not kept up with the rapid development of technology in a way that would shield people from discrimination. The review, expected to be released within the next week, is the Obama administration's first attempt at addressing the vast landscape of challenges, beyond national security and consumer privacy, posed by technological advancements.
benton.org/node/182124 | Associated Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
VERIZON SURVEILLANCE CHALLENGE
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Ellen Nakashima]
Verizon in January filed a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s program that collects billions of Americans’ call-detail records, but a surveillance court rejected it, according to newly declassified documents and individuals with knowledge of the matter. In denying the phone company’s petition in March, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer embraced the arguments put forth by the government that the program is constitutional in light of a Supreme Court decision in 1979 that Americans have no expectation of privacy in dialing phone numbers. Until January, no company had filed a legal challenge to the program, the judge said. But the documents make clear the filing came as a result of a December ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington that the NSA program likely was unconstitutional.
benton.org/node/182129 | Washington Post | Dept of Justice and Director of National Intelligence
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
LOW-LEVEL FEDERAL JUDGES BALKING AT LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUESTS FOR ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Ann Marimow, Craig Timberg]
Judges at the lowest levels of the federal judiciary are balking at sweeping requests by law enforcement officials for cellphone and other sensitive personal data, declaring the demands overly broad and at odds with basic constitutional rights. This rising assertiveness by magistrate judges -- the worker bees of the federal court system -- has produced rulings that elate civil libertarians and frustrate investigators, forcing them to meet or challenge tighter rules for collecting electronic evidence. Among the most aggressive opinions have come from DC Magistrate Judge John Facciola, a bow-tied court veteran who in recent months has blocked wide-ranging access to the Facebook page of Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis and the iPhone of the Georgetown University student accused of making ricin in his dorm room. In another case, he deemed a law enforcement request for the entire contents of an e-mail account “repugnant” to the US Constitution. For these and other cases, Judge Facciola has demanded more focused searches and insisted that authorities delete collected data that prove unrelated to a current investigation rather than keep them on file for unspecified future use. He also has taken the unusual step, for a magistrate judge, of issuing a series of formal, written opinions that detail his concerns, even about previously secret government investigations.
benton.org/node/181824 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
OPPOSITION TO INTERNET CONTROL, SURVEILLANCE AGREEMENT
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Kate Tummarello]
While most countries are signing on to a new agreement on Internet governance, Russia and Cuba have pushed back, according to US officials. The nonbinding agreement was drafted at NETmundial, a meeting in Brazil that brought together representatives from governments, the tech industry and civil society to discuss Internet governance issues. White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel called the agreement drafted at NETmundial “a critical step forward in the global discussions around the Internet." He said the meeting was “a huge success” for reaffirming global support for bottom-up governance of the Internet. The nonbinding agreement developed at the meeting lays down basic Internet governance principles -- such as free speech, privacy rights, security and protections for the Internet companies that connect people online -- and calls for a global approach to Internet governance and oversight. Specifically, the transition of oversight over the Internet’s Web address system, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), away from the U.S. government “should be conducted thoughtfully with a focus on maintaining the security and stability of the Internet, empowering the principle of equal participation among all stakeholder groups and striving towards a completed transition by September 2015,” the document said. The agreement also addresses government mass surveillance, saying it “should not be arbitrary or unlawful,” a standard that the U.S. government “is very comfortable” with, according to Scott Busby, deputy assistant secretary of State. That principle is “consistent with standards that have already been articulated in international law,” he said. “There is nothing groundbreaking new here in terms of mass surveillance or surveillance generally.”
benton.org/node/182115 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
SCOTUS TAKES UP CELLPHONE SEARCHES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Adam Liptak]
In a major test of how to interpret the Fourth Amendment in the digital age, the Supreme Court will consider two cases about whether the police need warrants to search the cellphones of the people they arrest. “The implications of these cases are huge,” said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, noting that about 12 million people are arrested every year, often for minor offenses, and that about 90 percent of Americans have cellphones. The Justices will have to decide how to apply an 18th-century phrase -- the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures” -- to devices that can contain 100 times more information than is in the Library of Congress’s 72,000-page collection of James Madison’s papers. The courts have long allowed warrantless searches in connection with arrests, saying they are justified by the need to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence. The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said the old rule should apply to the new devices. Others say there must be a different standard because of the sheer amount of data on and available through cellphones.
benton.org/node/182158 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
GOVERNMENTS GRAB FOR WEB
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: L Gordon Crovitz]
[Commentary] The Obama administration still doesn't seem to understand the whirlwind it reaped with its decision to give up stewardship of the open Internet. The first Internet governance conference since that surprise March announcement was held last week. The State Department issued a statement before the conference urging everyone to avoid the issue: "We would discourage meeting participants from debating the reach or limitations of state sovereignty in Internet policy." But deciding who gets to govern the Internet was precisely why many attendees from 80 countries came to the NetMundial conference in Brazil. The host country's leftist president, Dilma Rousseff, opened the conference by declaring: "The participation of governments should occur with equality so that no country has more weight than others." The Russian representative objected to "the control of one government," calling for the United Nations to decide "international norms and other standards on Internet governance." Authoritarian regimes want to control the Internet to preserve their power. President Barack Obama should revoke the plan to abandon the open Internet. The ugly spectacle of countries jockeying to control the Internet is a timely reminder of why the US should never give them the chance.
benton.org/node/182137 | Wall Street Journal
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
DIGITAL PROGRAMS ABROAD
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Ron Nixon]
The United States built Twitter-like social media programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, like one in Cuba, that were aimed at encouraging open political discussion. But like the program in Cuba, which was widely ridiculed when it became public this month, the services in Pakistan and Afghanistan shut down after they ran out of money because the Administration could not make them self-sustaining. In all three cases, American officials appeared to lack a long-term strategy for the programs beyond providing money to start them. Administration officials also said that there had been similar programs in dozens of other countries, including a Yes Youth Can project in Kenya that was still active. Officials also said they had plans to start projects in Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Some programs operate openly with the knowledge of foreign governments, but others have not been publicly disclosed.
benton.org/node/182135 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
POLICYMAKERS
REP ESHOO
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: ]
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) is tapping into her Silicon Valley ties as she seeks the top Democratic position on the powerful House Commerce Committee. Rep Eshoo, who represents Palo Alto, recently formed a political action committee to collect donations that she in turn is donating to the campaigns of Democratic lawmakers facing tough re-election battles. The pass-through of money, all perfectly legal, is how senior members of Congress work to secure and maintain plum leadership positions. It's also how companies support senior lawmakers in hopes they will be remembered down the road. Federal Election Commission records show that Rep Eshoo filed paperwork on Feb. 24 to organize the "Peninsula PAC." The political action committee has collected more than $200,000. It has distributed about $96,000 to the campaign committees of two dozen lawmakers facing tough re-election battles, such as Reps. Ami Bera (D-CA), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Raul Ruiz (D-CA) and Scott Peters (D-CA), the FEC records show. The four freshmen are the GOP's top California targets in this year's midterm elections. The people and companies donating to the Peninsula PAC reads like a who's who of technology companies and their chief executives. The political action committees for Google, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Cisco were among the tech companies that gave $5,000, the maximum amount per year, to Eshoo's committee. Several Oracle executives, including founder Larry Ellison, also donated the maximum allowed. Jude Barry, a San Jose political strategist, said the region's companies are striving to increase their clout in Washington, so the donations are an extension of that focus.
benton.org/node/182145 | Associated Press
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top