April 2014

President Obama must show he supports net neutrality - here's how

[Commentary] Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission appointed by President Obama, dropped a bombshell: Internet service providers such as Comcast would be allowed to charge Internet content providers, like eBay, more for faster speeds to reach end users. This reversed the FCC's policy, which was developed over years of thorough analysis. Winners will be the Internet service providers. Losers will be consumers, innovators and startups. That decision means that someone with a new idea to stream video content will be unable to compete with Netflix, which can pay the higher rates the service providers will charge. Innovation, which has truly been the hallmark of the Internet, will wither and die. The only ways to block Wheeler's proposal are for either the Senate to impeach him or for the President to replace him as chairman. President Obama probably does not have the legal power to remove him as a commissioner, but he can replace him and designate one of the other commissioners as chair. And he should. The President should appoint either Commissioner Mignon Clyburn (who has served as acting chairwoman) or Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel as chair. And he should do it before May 15 so the new chair can prevent Wheeler's proposal from becoming law. President Obama said he supports the net neutrality principles. Let's see if he'll back up those words.

[Tuthill teaches telecommunications, broadcast and Internet law at the UC Berkeley School of Law]

NAB Opting Out of Open Net Fray – For Now

Broadcasters could be forced to start paying to get high-quality online programming streams to broadband Internet subscribers under a controversial Federal Communications Commission proposal that the agency is slated to put out for public comment on May 15. But despite the pleas of watchdog group representatives for support in their efforts to force the agency to reconsider the proposal, the National Association of Broadcasters has remained on the sidelines, both to avoid upsetting NAB member Comcast -- one of the nation’s largest broadband Internet service providers -- and the broadcast industry’s deregulatory-minded GOP allies on Capitol Hill, broadcast industry sources say.

“Anybody who delivers content over the Internet ought to be concerned about the direction this is going,” says one broadcast industry source, who asked not to be identified. “You could be in the fast lane or you could be in the slow lane, and you have pay to be in the fast lane,” said another broadcast industry executive. “It would be worthwhile [for the NAB board] to have a discussion about it.” Representatives of liberal watchdog groups told TVNewsCheck that broadcasters have a major stake in how the newly proposed rules come out because younger people in particular are increasingly getting their information and other programming online. “Broadcasters should want to reach those users -- particularly young users who are the future of the industry -- without having to cut online deals with every cable or phone company, or having to pay the kind of fees Netflix and Apple can afford to pay to ensure a good online video experience,” says Marvin Ammori, a fellow with the New America Foundation.

The Road to a Fast Track on the Web

[Commentary] Deitch write: “FCC, in a Shift, Backs Fast Lanes for Web Traffic” correctly points out the public outcry against the Federal Communications Commission’s recent decision on net neutrality. This outcry reflects the public’s justified fear that Internet traffic in this country is controlled by a small number of large corporations whose interests are not necessarily consistent with the public good…. High-speed Internet service is a necessity for hospitals, schools and government offices, as well as businesses and individuals. To allow unregulated control of these resources in the hands of a few private companies is dangerous and irresponsible. The law must be changed to recognize that high-speed Internet service is a utility, and regulations put in place to assure access to high-speed Internet service at a reasonable cost and without content discrimination.

Baker writes: Your editorial “Creating a Two-Speed Internet” notes that phone and cable companies have argued that it is unfair for private companies to heavily use the publicly funded infrastructure of the Internet for free. I could not agree with this more…. I also think that ending net neutrality would squash innovation while offering no public benefit in return. A minor addition to the FCC’s proposal could remedy both these issues at once. We could take some of what big Internet companies will be paying to providers in exchange for a fast track to consumers, and use it to accord the same privilege to the Internet’s smallest players: public media, nonprofits and private sector start-ups. If net neutrality really is doomed, why not make a provision for the public interest part of the new structure from the start?
[Baker is director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Center for Media, Public Policy and Education at Fordham University]

Heartbleed’s Impact

The Heartbleed security flaw on one of the most widely used “secure socket” encryption programs on the internet had an impact on a notable share of internet users, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center:

39% of internet users say that after they learned of the online security problems they took steps to protect their online accounts by doing such things as changing passwords or canceling accounts.
29% of internet users believe their personal information was put at risk because of the Heartbleed bug.
6% of internet users say they believe their personal information was stolen.

As a news story, the revelations about Heartbleed drew the attention of a notable segment of adults. Some 60% of adults (and 64% of internet users) said they had heard about the bug. Some 19% of adults said they had heard “a lot” about it and 41% said they had heard “a little” about it. By comparison, though, the Heartbleed story drew much less intensity and scope of attention than other big news stories. In this same survey, 46% of respondents said they had heard “a lot” about tensions between Russia and Ukraine and 34% said they had heard “a little.”

Google Stops Scanning Student Gmail Accounts for Ads

Google stopped scanning student Gmail accounts for advertising purposes after the practice was scrutinized during a recent court case.

Google Apps for Education, a free service used by more than 30 million students, teachers and administrators, offers Gmail email accounts, as well as calendars, cloud storage and document creation. Google didn’t place ads inside the apps, which it offered to educational institutions since 2006. However, the company continued to scan the contents of students’ Gmail accounts., gathering information that could potentially have been used to target ads to those students elsewhere online. Google’s move marked the second time in as many weeks that privacy concerns prompted changes at a maker of education software.

Cable TV outlook bright, but rising costs a big problem, analysts say

Wall Street is betting that the cable industry will successfully navigate an increasingly competitive landscape.

"It's hard to look at this and not be positive," Jessica Reif Cohen, a Bank of America Merrill Lynch managing director, said of Comcast's deal-making during a panel discussion at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. "Comcast will be a major player in the top 50 markets," she said, adding that should help create more of a national advertising model that has existed.

The emergence of Netflix, Google, Amazon and other technology firms also has served as a wake-up call for the industry. Netflix's explosive growth -- and the high marks it gets from its customers -- has prodded cable TV operators to spend huge sums of money during the last two to three years to upgrade their networks, video-on-demand offerings and on-screen viewer guides. Google's rollout of its super high-speed Google Fiber broadband network might be intended as little more than a "whip" to encourage the traditional telecommunications and cable operators to upgrade their own networks to send more data into homes -- or they risk the threat of Google moving into local communities to offer lower-cost and higher-speed broadband services. "I don't expect them to really dig up flower beds on a major scale," JP Morgan managing director Philip Cusick said. In other words, Cusick doesn't believe that Google intends to spend the billions of dollars that it would take to lay the fiber lines necessary to build a national footprint for broadband on the scale of an AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox Communications or Charter.

Viewing Habits Show Traditional TV Networks Still Reign Supreme

Especially among younger viewers, use and awareness of digital streaming companies is growing to rival that of traditional TV networks. However, television currently remains the top medium by which to consume programming.

Tech embraces DC’s ‘nerd prom’

Silicon Valley might profess a distaste for official Washington -- but the tech industry sure is salivating over this year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Google, Facebook and Yahoo are planning parties, panels and more around one of Washington’s oldest, most insider institutions. Their presence during the town’s closest approximation of a red carpet reflects the industry’s new embrace of the old ways of doing business in the Beltway -- a place where lobbyists and executives, for better or worse, long have wined and dined their regulators.

Social Media in Afghanistan Takes On Life of Its Own

Afghans have long been resistant to central authority -- as the United States has found to its frustration -- with Afghanistan divided along tribal, cultural, religious and linguistic lines. Its mountains and valleys have stood in the way of communications breakthroughs that have unified other societies. But a social media network initially financed by the United States is finding a way around those barriers.

It is connecting millions of Afghans equipped with cellphones and other mobile devices, allowing an exchange of ideas that has never been possible in Afghanistan outside Kabul, the capital. Similar American-financed programs elsewhere have failed, most spectacularly in Cuba, but Afghanistan is considered one of the great success stories from the United States’ effort to counter extremists’ violent ideology with social media. In Afghanistan, the network has achieved far more, allowing Afghans access to information as never before, bolstering education efforts and encouraging political debate, Obama administration officials say.

Finding the Best Path Forward to Protect the Open Internet

Some recent commentary has had a misinformed interpretation of the Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) currently before the Commission.

There are two things that are important to understand. First, this is not a final decision by the Commission but rather a formal request for input on a proposal as well as a set of related questions. Second, as the Notice makes clear, all options for protecting and promoting an Open Internet are on the table.

I believe this process will put us on track to have tough, enforceable Open Internet rules on the books in an expeditious manner, ending a decade of uncertainty and litigation. I do not believe we should leave the market unprotected for multiple more years while lawyers for the biggest corporate players tie the FCC’s protections up in court.

Notwithstanding this, all regulatory options remain on the table. If the proposal before us now turns out to be insufficient or if we observe anyone taking advantage of the rule, I won’t hesitate to use Title II. However, unlike with Title II, we can use the court’s roadmap to implement Open Internet regulation now rather than endure additional years of litigation and delay.

Let me be clear, however, as to what I believe is not “commercially reasonable” on the Internet:

Something that harms consumers is not commercially reasonable. For instance, degrading service in order to create a new “fast lane” would be shut down.
Something that harms competition is not commercially reasonable. For instance, degrading overall service so as to force consumers and content companies to a higher priced tier would be shut down.
Providing exclusive, prioritized service to an affiliate is not commercially reasonable. For instance, a broadband provider that also owns a sports network should not be able to give a commercial advantage to that network over another competitive sports network wishing to reach viewers over the Internet.
Something that curbs the free exercise of speech and civic engagement is not commercially reasonable. For instance, if the creators of new Internet content or services had to seek permission from ISPs or pay special fees to be seen online such action should be shut down.

Benton

Search