June 2014

POLICYMAKERS

THE TECH-SAVVY SUPREME COURT
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Farhad Manjoo]
[Commentary] The two major technology-related decisions handed down by the Supreme Court this week have been widely greeted by people in the tech industry as one win and one loss. The win involved cellphone privacy: The court, siding with tech policy advocacy groups, ruled that the police must obtain a warrant to search the phones of people they arrest. The loss was Aereo, the brazen TV streaming start-up. The court ruled against the company, which created a cablelike service without paying broadcast networks for the rights to their content. But when you examine the rulings, a different conclusion emerges. These were both wins for the industry, because they revealed something that should be quite gratifying for every technologist: The Supreme Court understands technology. At a broad level, it understands the Internet and how the worldwide network has transformed our understanding of the law. More than that, the justices (aided, surely, by their Snapchatting clerks) seem to understand some of the deeper distinctions between various kinds of tech, distinctions that are vital to how we should regulate the gadgets now infiltrating our lives.
benton.org/node/189898 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WILL THE SUPREME COURT EVER FIGURE OUT TECHNOLOGY?
[SOURCE: Vox, AUTHOR: Nilay Patel]
The Supreme Court issued two major rulings: in Riley v. California, the court required cops to get a warrant before searching cellphones, and in American Broadcasting v. Aereo, the court banned the cloud-TV service Aereo from retransmitting broadcast television signals over the Internet. But both of these cases are also fundamentally about technology -- specifically, what happens when technology moves so fast that the law simply doesn't understand it anymore. When that happens, it's up to the courts to provide answers to difficult questions: is searching a smartphone like searching a pack of cigarettes? Can thousands of tiny antennas and some clever code dance around copyright law well enough to create a new business model? To answer these questions is to answer the hardest question of all: can you put the technology back in the box, or do we need to change society around it for good? The Supreme Court took a huge step when it agreed 9-0 that the smartphone revolution requires a change in how we interpret the Fourth Amendment. But the hard part for our legal system will be the thousands of little steps we need to ensure all those smartphone apps can keep changing the world.
benton.org/node/189847 | Vox
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Rep JASON CHAFFETZ: TECH’S PACE ‘SCARES A LOT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS’
[SOURCE: Politico, AUTHOR: Alex Byers]
If you’re asking whether Washington has kept pace with technological innovation in Silicon Valley, Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has a blunt response: “Are you kidding?” “There are very few people who understand or appreciate tech,” Rep Chaffetz said. “I think it scares a lot of members of Congress.” Much of Congress’ connection to Silicon Valley is through fundraising only, added Rep Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), whose district routinely sees visiting lawmakers raising cash. “But that doesn’t mean they have any idea of what is going on in the tech world,” she added. Washington’s slow understanding of technology and telecom development comes amid an increasingly active private-sector -- most notably, a pair of major mergers between AT&T and DirecTV and Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Lawmakers won’t have direct authority over whether those deals go through, but many legislators have still not been hesitant to weigh in. “It concerns me because we need a competitive marketplace and you can mess that up in a variety of ways,” Rep Lofgren said. Rep Chaffetz added, “Some of the consolidation is healthy in the process.”
benton.org/node/189832 | Politico
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

SCOTUS GETS IT: ENCRYPTION IS A BASIC SECURITY FEATURE, NOT A SIGN YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE
[SOURCE: Revere Digital, AUTHOR: Tim Edgar]
[Commentary] If you kept all your private physical information in a locked trunk, the government would need a warrant to search it. “Most people cannot lug around every piece of mail they have received for the past several months, every picture they have taken, or every book or article they have read,” the Chief Justice John Roberts said in Riley v. California. If people did, “they would have to drag a trunk behind them.” Searching a trunk should, and does, require a warrant. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California says that modern “trunks” like phones, computers and cloud services should be no different. In straightforward language, the Chief Justice demolishes the notions that have obscured the basic fact that the constitution entitles us to “the right to be secure” in our “persons, houses, papers and effects.” Importantly for digital privacy and security companies, the Supreme Court had no time for the government’s complaints that common security features -- like encryption -- justified dispensing with Constitutional protections. It is clear that the justices saw encryption correctly, as an ordinary and prudent privacy protection, not as some exotic feature designed to thwart the needs of law enforcement. [Edgar is Visiting Fellow, Brown University]
benton.org/node/189920 | Revere Digital
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE SCOTUS PRIVACY RULING IS ACCELERATING LAWMAKERS’ PUSH FOR E-MAIL PROTECTIONS
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung]
Privacy-minded lawmakers are already capitalizing on an opening created by the Supreme Court when it unanimously ruled that police must have a warrant to search your cell phone. Members of Congress who back stronger protections for e-mail and other electronic communications have begun citing the Court's landmark privacy endorsement, in an attempt to add momentum to their own privacy legislation. The push to reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a decades-old law that allows cops to read your e-mails if they've lain dormant for more than 180 days, has the support of the Justice Department and 220 cosponsors of a House bill known as the Email Privacy Act. The proposal would force police to get a warrant if they want to look at a suspect's e-mail. Today, that type of inspection requires little more than a subpoena. "Even the Supreme Court of the United States, with an average age of 67, has moved ahead of Congress on technology issues," Rep Jared Polis (D-CO), one of the cosponsors, told the Washington Post. "The Court has put new wind in the sails of EPCA reform. This same standard [Fourth Amendment protections for cell phone contents] should apply to electronic communications."
benton.org/node/189844 | Washington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE IN THE SUPREME COURT'S CELL PHONE PRIVACY RULING
[SOURCE: Vox, AUTHOR: Timothy Lee]
The Supreme Court decision of Riley v. California isn't just a landmark ruling on cell phone privacy. It also represents a dramatic shift in the high court's attitude toward technology and privacy. The Supreme Court's new attitude is best summarized by a single sentence in the opinion. The government had argued that searching a cell phone is no different from searching other items in a suspect's pocket. That, the court wrote, "is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon." The government has typically pursued a simple legal strategy when faced with digital technologies. First, find a precedent that gave the government access to information in the physical world. Second, argue that the same principle should apply in the digital world, ignoring the fact that this will vastly expand the government's snooping power while eroding Americans' privacy. In all legal precedents, the government wants the courts to ignore the huge practical differences between the technologies that existed when old precedents were established and the technologies Americans use today. This most recent ruling suggests that when these issues reach the nation's highest court, the justices won't be so credulous. They'll recognize that cell phone tracking is as different from a bank deposit slip as a ride on horseback is from a flight to the moon.
benton.org/node/189842 | Vox
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

AT LAST, A VICTORY FOR PRIVACY
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Finally, a victory for personal privacy. In an era of increasing government intrusion into the lives of the governed, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously -- that's right, unanimously -- that police cannot just go bounding through suspects' personal cell phones without first obtaining a search warrant. The court acknowledged what should be obvious, that Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure apply to cell phones. One of the key principles of the legal system is that police cannot search citizens without cause. The Supreme Court properly recognized that it's as unreasonable to examine a suspect's smartphone without a warrant as it would be to search through a suspect's home or office.
benton.org/node/190143 | San Jose Mercury News
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

FACEBOOK TRIES TO SHIELD DATA
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Vindu Goel, James McKinley Jr]
Facebook and the Manhattan district attorney’s office are in a bitter fight over the government’s demand for the contents of hundreds of Facebook accounts. Facebook argues that Manhattan prosecutors violated the constitutional right of its users to be free of unreasonable searches by demanding nearly complete account data on 381 people, ranging from pages they had liked to photos and private messages. When the social networking company fought the data demands, a New York judge ruled that Facebook had no standing to contest the search warrants since it was simply an online repository of data, not a target of the criminal investigation. To protect the secrecy of the investigation, the judge also barred the company from informing the affected users, a decision that prevented the individuals from fighting the data requests themselves. The case, which is now on appeal, pits the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches by the government against the needs of prosecutors to seek evidence from the digital sources where people increasingly store their most sensitive data.
benton.org/node/190132 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NEW SENSORS IN CHICAGO
[SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, AUTHOR: David Heinzmann]
The curled metal fixtures set to go up on a handful of Michigan Avenue light poles later this summer may look like delicate pieces of sculpture, but researchers say they'll provide a big step forward in the way Chicago understands itself by observing the city's people and surroundings. The smooth, perforated sheaths of metal are decorative, but their job is to protect and conceal a system of data-collection sensors that will measure air quality, light intensity, sound volume, heat, precipitation and wind. The sensors will also count people by measuring wireless signals on mobile devices. Some experts caution that efforts like the one launching here to collect data from people and their surroundings pose concerns of a Big Brother intrusion into personal privacy.
benton.org/node/190129 | Chicago Tribune
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PRIVACY/SECURITY

REP LOFGREN: NO APPETITE FOR CONSUMER PRIVACY BILL
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Kate Tummarello]
Rep Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) doesn’t see Congress moving a bill to protect consumer privacy anytime soon. “We’re not doing that,” Rep Lofgren said. Earlier in 2014, the Administration renewed previous calls by President Barack Obama for baseline consumer privacy legislation through its report on Big Data. That report -- initiated after the administration faced public backlash over government surveillance practices -- called on the Commerce Department to work with the private sector to develop legislative proposals. Rep Lofgren said that there is no enthusiasm in Congress for such a bill at the moment. “Do you see any appetite to do that? No,” she said. That appetite might increase based on consumer reactions to evolving, and potentially privacy-threatening, technologies, she acknowledged. “Consumer reaction … will shape what goes on,” she said.
benton.org/node/189855 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

FCC ISSUES SNAPSHOT OF US INTERNET SERVICE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Edward Wyatt]
The number of homes in the United States that subscribe to Internet service has grown at a 15 percent annual rate over the last decade, to 85 million. But as much as 30 percent of households do not have a connection faster than dial-up speed, according to government figures just released. In its semiannual report on Internet Access Services, the Federal Communications Commission found that as of June 30, 2013, roughly 70 percent of households had fixed Internet connections of at least 0.2 megabits per second, a rather slow speed but generally faster than dial-up. Most people with Internet connections have even faster speeds, however. About 54 percent of all households can download data or video at a rate of three megabits per second or better. The FCC defines broadband, or high-speed Internet service, as having a minimum download speed of four megabits per second. The figures show a stubbornly persistent digital divide in this country between households that subscribe to Internet service and those that do not. Other figures in the report show that Internet adoption rates grow along with income and education. In addition, city dwellers are more likely to subscribe to Internet service than are residents of less-populated areas.
benton.org/node/189916 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WE DON’T NEED NET NEUTRALITY; WE NEED COMPETITION
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Peter Bright]
[Commentary] The network neutrality debate is a muddy one at best, with different people using the term in different ways. Regulatory enforcement of the idea would at best prove inadequate to achieve what people want. At worst, it might even prove harmful to innovation and progress, potentially outlawing existing widespread and harmless practices. In addition, the current fixation on network neutrality happens to work to the advantage of the large incumbent Internet Service Providers (ISPs). While they may oppose network neutrality regulations (or, indeed, any legislative or regulatory limitations on their business at all), so long as the debate centers around network neutrality, the largest ISPs can be confident that nothing will challenge their dominant market positions. There is another way. Proven "unbundled access" schemes can provide the same perceived advantages as the "network neutrality" idea while avoiding the difficulties that network neutrality regulations could impose. The approach has been used around the world to establish competitive markets that ultimately rely on market forces rather than regulation to ensure that ISPs provide a quality service.
benton.org/node/189912 | Ars Technica
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BTOP UPDATE
[SOURCE: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, AUTHOR: ]
From September through December 2013, BTOP Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) recipients:
Deployed or upgraded more than 760 miles of fiber. Since the program began, recipients have deployed more than 112,000 miles of fiber.
Connected more than 900 community anchor institutions. Thus far, recipients have connected approximately 21,000 total community anchor institutions.
Generated approximately 1,600 new broadband adoption subscribers, bringing the total number of new subscribers to approximately 631,000.
As of December 30, 2013, NTIA helped 192 recipients (86 percent of the total) complete project activities. NTIA will continue to work with the remaining 32 recipients (14 percent) to verify that they have met their grant requirements and formally close out these grants in the coming months. The majority of State Broadband Initiative (SBI) awards remain active until January 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2013, grant recipients drew
down $3.51 billion, or 85 percent, of federal grant funds. Recipients will use up to the remaining $613.3 million, or 15 percent, of federal grant funds to complete their projects.
benton.org/node/189914 | National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELECOM

PRISON PHONE RATES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Stephanie Clifford, Jessica Silver-Greenberg]
Inside the Clallam Bay Corrections Center, a state prison, one private company, JPay, has a grip on Internet and financial services. Another, Global Tel-Link, controls the phones. These companies are part of a new breed of businesses flourishing inside American jails and prisons. Many of these players are being bankrolled by one of the most powerful forces in American finance: private equity. Private investment firms have invested many billions of dollars in the prison industry, betting -- correctly -- that it is a growth business. Wall Street previously championed companies like Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest private corrections company. But unlike companies that have thrived by running prisons, the likes of Global Tel-Link and JPay are becoming de facto banks, phone companies and Internet service providers for inmates and their families across the nation. It is a lucrative proposition, in part because these companies often operate beyond the reach of regulations that protect ordinary consumers. Inmates say they are being gouged by high costs and hidden fees. Friends and families say they have little choice but to shoulder the financial burden. But private enterprises are not the only ones profiting. Eager to reduce costs and bolster dwindling budgets, states, counties and cities are seeking a substantial cut in return for letting the businesses into prisons.
benton.org/node/190140 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: CAN YOU HEAR?
[SOURCE: The Daily Yonder, AUTHOR: Donna Kallner]
[Commentary] When you call 911 for help, you're gaining access to a local government public safety communications system that faces greater challenges than dropped calls and video buffering. And it's not just the patient whose life may depend on that communication system. Volunteer firefighters, emergency medical technicians and search-and-rescue personnel count on it, too. These emergency personnel need it to dispatch them to those in need, and they use it to acknowledge a page and until they return safely to their own homes or jobs. The recent breakdown in that system in my area made a difficult situation more hazardous. And as you can imagine, that was followed by a deluge of uncomfortable but informative conversations among volunteers, local government officials and service providers. By the time you read this, our problem should be resolved -- for now. But what if it's your problem next time? Here are some things you should know about public safety communications systems in rural areas.
Who Owns Those Towers? In my county, Langlade County, located in northeastern Wisconsin, two of the towers are owned by the county. Others are owned by private enterprises.
It's Not Easy Being Green. You don't have to be this wooded to experience significant communications challenges in a rural area. In your area the problem may be the distance or other terrain features. Or it may just be that the equipment isn't up to the tasks we expect it to perform.
It Can Be a Tower of Babel. It's not just fire departments, emergency medical systems (EMS) and law enforcement using local government channels. The airways are crowded with other users that may include the Department of Natural Resources and public utilities.
It's Always about Money. While it's possible to get a used mobile radio for as little as $300, new units run more than $1,000 each, making the radios a significant expense for small rural fire departments and ambulance services. The systems that support them are a significant expense for units of government like our county. That makes sharing space on a cell tower look pretty good compared to the $500,000 or more it would cost to erect a county-owned tower.
Is It too Much to Ask? We should all try to defer opinions about what our communities can't afford until we've made some effort to learn about the systems and services lives depend on.
benton.org/node/189876 | Daily Yonder, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

COMPETITION AND FAIR PLAY
[SOURCE: The Daily Yonder, AUTHOR: Tim Marema]
[Commentary] The free market and competition alone will take care of all of rural America’s communications needs. So says Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI). The facts? Well, they say otherwise. “If you have a company that doesn’t have very good [phone] service, don’t you think customers are going to switch to another company?” Sen Johnson asked rhetorically. “Don’t you think that competition would do a better job of guaranteeing that [service] than heavy-handed government trying to guarantee that?” That’s great in theory, but in practice it leaves something to be desired, especially in rural areas. Without an even-handed set of rules, lots of consumer information and some good choices, real competition frequently doesn't make it to rural America. There's no better illustration of this point than the very matter Sen Johnson was referring to -- the problem of rural call completion. Some of these “least call routing” companies have faked unanswered calls, sent calls into endless loops and dropped them outright. The problem got so bad that the Federal Communications Commission got involved at the request of some rural phone companies, state utilities commissions and other consumer advocates. For competition to hold down prices and ensure quality service, consumers need information -- they need to know what the problem is. And they need choices -- they need an alternative to the company that is charging too much and providing too little. And they need companies to stay above board and play by the rules. The FCC’s action -- which has bipartisan support -- shows how a public intervention can improve the marketplace for us all. There ought to be a lesson here as we continue the transition from our old phone system to the new, Internet-based system of the future.
benton.org/node/189857 | Daily Yonder, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

THE DANGERS OF THE COMCAST TIME WARNER MERGER
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Letitia James]
[Commentary] The proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger has the potential of carrying considerable implications for New York City consumers. Prior to rendering a decision, the Public Service Commission must thoughtfully deliberate the effects that the proposed merger would have on our community to ensure that the needs of our people are best served by any changes that would -- or could -- result. This deal would merge Comcast Corporation, which is not only the biggest cable company in the US; it is also the largest media provider in the world, with Time Warner Cable, the second largest cable company in the country. This merger is extremely concerning to any reasonable person with respect to the effects of non-competition on Internet and cable customers, as it will likely diminish what is already minimal competition for high-speed Internet. In addition, apart from cable and Internet customers, Time Warner Cable and Comcast already have the vast majority of power to set prices on transit and content providers -- some of whom are direct competitors of content providers owned by Comcast, which certainly sounds ripe for an abuse power by Comcast towards non-Comcast owned content providers. Furthermore, if the merger were to succeed, the interconnection market -- where Comcast already has tremendous control -- would be undoubtedly altered, possibly facilitating Comcast to gain additional leverage in demanding higher payments from transit companies.
[James is New York City's elected Public Advocate and Chair of the Commission on Public Information and Communication (COPIC)]
benton.org/node/189840 | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION/RADIO

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE CABLE TV REVOLUTION?
[SOURCE: MarketWatch, AUTHOR: Quentin Fottrell]
In the follow-up to the recent defeat of Aereo by the US Supreme Court where broadcasters successfully argued that Aereo engaged in unauthorized exploitation of their content, headlines about rampant cord-cutting are not backed up by the data, says Dan Rayburn, a principal analyst with Frost & Sullivan. “Are cable companies still having record profits? Yes. The industry has not lost more than 1% in any one quarter. People are saying cable is dead and broadcast is dead.” Online services, he says, are a complement -- not a disrupter -- to cable. US pay-TV subscribers -- cable, satellite and Internet protocol TV -- rose by 202,670 during the first quarter, although cable subscribers alone in the US fell by 132,330, according to recent analysis by global information company IHS Technology. The bigger cable players have been showing more resilience. But some see television and other content providers slowly merging. “There’s the old Trojan Horse argument,” says Aram Sinnreich, media professor at Rutgers University. “Movies and TV are the lures, but eventually the television itself will just become equally important for entertainment, gaming, communications.” That’s not to say that financially-strapped Americans are not exasperated. Cable bills have more than doubled over the last decade and the national average bill -- currently around $90 a month -- will reach $200 in 2020, estimates market researcher The NPD Group. Indeed, 2.7% of pay-TV customers say they’re thinking about cutting the cord in 2015, according to a 2013 survey by research firm Magid Advisors, up from 2.2% the year before and 1.9% in 2011. But Rayburn says what people say in surveys and what they actually do in real life are very different: “If you want to ask anyone if they want to stop paying for something, what do you think they’re going to say?”
benton.org/node/189864 | MarketWatch
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

DIRECTV PROBED ON ACCESS TO TV STATION SIGNALS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Some legislators took the opportunity of DirecTV Chairman Michael White's appearance at a House antitrust subcommittee hearing to ask about their constituents’ access to local signals. Full Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) spent some time probing White on why DirecTV does not provide the local ABC affiliate in Harrisonburg (VA) to his constituents despite being allowed to do so legally. Instead they have to get the ABC affiliate from Washington (DC), he pointed out, which is hours away. He asked White whether he would commit to resolving the issue. White conceded DirecTV had "some gaps" in its local coverage, but was working on them, including by launching two new satellites within the next year, and plans for closing one of those Virginia gaps -- in Charlottesville – later in 2014. He said he would be happy to work with the chairman on the issue of orphan counties so long as DirecTV did not have to double pay retransmission and its spot beams could reach the relevant rural areas.
benton.org/node/189853 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PAY-TV'S BUNDLING GETS REPRIEVE IN HIGH COURT'S AEREO RULING
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Ryan Faughnder]
In its ruling against the TV streaming company Aereo, the Supreme Court has removed one of the most visible threats to the pay-TV industry's notoriously expensive bundle. There is also a generation of viewers, particularly young people, who increasingly forgo cable and satellite in favor of online outlets including Netflix and Hulu. Analysts contend the media industry will lose this key TV-watching demographic without adopting less restrictive, and more affordable options. "If Aereo had been upheld, you could've told your cable company to jump in a lake," said Jeffrey Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future at USC's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. "With Aereo, and also things like Netflix and Hulu, that would have been the start to a pretty good package." Broadcasters worry that services like Aereo encourage so-called cord-cutting and undercut the rising fees they charge distributors including Time Warner Cable and DirecTV to carry their programming. Those fees account for billions of dollars in revenue a year.
benton.org/node/189850 | Los Angeles Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

AEREO COULD HAVE SAVED AIRWAVES FROM BROADCATERS’ RANSOM
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Felix Salmon]
[Commentary] The Aereo case came down, at its heart, to whether the US’s top court would go with the spirit of the law, or its letter. The strict constructionists on the court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented: Aereo had found a cunning loophole in the law. The majority, however, insisted that the law in question -- the Copyright Act of 1976 -- be “read in light of its purpose”. The Act created a whole new revenue stream for broadcast television networks. No longer did they need to survive on ad revenue alone; now, they could also charge the cable networks for access to their channels. Aereo was a threat to that model. From the consumer’s point of view, it was a company that looked very much as though it was rebroadcasting a huge range of free-to-air TV stations – only instead of the stations arriving through a cable pipe, they arrived on your computer, or your phone, over the internet. Once again, the broadcasters wanted the ability to charge for such rebroadcasting activity. But the world of 2014 is different to the world of 1976 in two ways:
When the people who own the broadcast channels make most of their money from cable TV, they are not going to push the free-to-air option. In fact, the cable companies spend a lot of time and effort preventing broadcast networks from making their content available for free.
Spectrum used by the broadcast networks has become enormously valuable. In a free market, there would be almost no broadcast TV at all: it is an incredible waste of spectrum, which can be put to much more effective use, for example by mobile phone networks.
[Salmon is a senior editor at Fusion]
benton.org/node/190135 | Financial Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WHY THE SUPREME COURT JUST SET TV INNOVATION BACK A DECADE
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Jeff Roberts]
[Commentary] 24 hours later and I’m still furious. When news of Aereo’s demise broke, I did my best to calmly explain why six people used the law to kill the most innovative TV service in a generation. But now I might as well say how I really feel. The Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 that Aereo’s streaming service infringed on broadcasters’ copyright, was not just wrong. It was terrible, stupid and misguided. In crippling Aereo, the six judges made a choice to entrench the current, badly broken model of TV. That model has let the TV business largely defy the logic of digital distribution, and instead impose a form of cartel pricing on consumers -- requiring people to buy a slew of channels they don’t want in order to watch the handful of ones they do. Now, we’re stuck instead with the TV industry’s over-priced bundles and, in the case of mobile, a confusing and convoluted “TV everywhere” system that seeks to replicate an out-of-date form of linear TV watching that no one wants in the first place.
benton.org/node/189849 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

FCC RELEASES SPECTRUM REPACKING SCENARIOS
[SOURCE: TVNewsCheck, AUTHOR: Doug Halonen]
The Federal Communications Commission has released key technical data that the agency used to predict that TV stations may face little new interference after they are repacked into new channel assignments in the wake of the agency’s incentive auction in 2015. The FCC has said that agency repacking simulations had shown that only about 1% of stations are expected to receive more than 1 percent additional interference, with none receiving more than 2%, after TV stations are repacked into new channel assignments after the incentive auctions. The National Association of Broadcasters asked that the FCC release the 100 repacking scenarios that the FCC had based its findings on, hoping to test the agency’s results. Said NAB EVP Rick Kaplan, in response to the FCC’s data dump: “We are thankful the FCC responded positively to our request. This information should prove to be very useful and will allow NAB and others assist the FCC in the very complex repacking process.”
benton.org/node/189906 | TVNewsCheck | B&C
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Public Notice]
The Federal Communications Commission has taken steps to strengthen the Emergency Alert System (EAS) by proposing revisions to EAS rules to address problems encountered during the first nationwide test of the EAS. Specifically, in light of the lessons learned from the nationwide EAS test, which occurred on November 9, 2011, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to: 1) establish a national location code for EAS alerts issued by the President; 2) amend FCC rules governing a national EAS test code for future nationwide tests; 3) require broadcasters, cable service providers, and other entities required to comply with the Commission’s EAS rules (EAS Participants) to file test result data electronically; and 4) require EAS Participants to meet minimal standards to ensure that EAS alerts are accessible to all members of the public, including those with disabilities.
benton.org/node/189904 | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

T-MOBILE SPEED TESTS
[SOURCE: The Verge, AUTHOR: Chris Welch]
Testing the download and upload speeds of your smartphone with apps like Speedtest will no longer count against your monthly data allowance on T-Mobile. The carrier says similar apps intended to help customers gauge network performance have also been "whitelisted" and will add nothing to their data usage totals. In the past, T-Mobile has relied on user-initiated tests from Speedtest to back claims that it offers the fastest 4G LTE data service in the United States. Power users may appreciate the new policy, but net neutrality advocates are sure to hate it. Yet again, T-Mobile is giving special treatment to certain data traveling over its network. "So you actually think somebody would have a net neutrality issue with you giving it to them for free?" asked T-Mobile CEO John Legere. "I don't foresee the Uncarrier's issues and what we're doing with the industry being other than something that the proponents of net neutrality would really be supportive of."
benton.org/node/190131 | Verge, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

EDUCATION

FCC AND GSA PARTNER
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Jon Wilkins]
In support of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s two overarching goals for the E-rate modernization proceeding -- ensuring all schools and libraries have access to high speed broadband and maximizing the cost-effectiveness of E-rate supported purchases -- the FCC and the General Services Administration (GSA) have entered into an agreement to partner to deliver to schools and libraries the opportunity to consolidate their purchasing power and save significant money on wireless access points, routers, and the other equipment they need to deploy modern, robust Wi-Fi networks. We expect this opportunity to be available for E-rate applicants in Funding Year 2015. Specifically, the two agencies agreed to work together to establish blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) administered by GSA's National Information Technology Commodity Program (NITCP) for the benefit of E-rate eligible schools and libraries. Once implemented, the BPAs would allow schools and libraries to utilize the GSA's reverse auction platform to seek bids from equipment vendors at prices even better than those already available under the relevant GSA schedule. Given that data in our record indicates that equipment makes up as much as 80 percent of the total cost of internal network deployment, this would provide a real opportunity for all schools and libraries to save potentially significant amounts as they upgrade their internal connections, and allow our limited E-rate dollars to go further.
benton.org/node/190138 | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

CLOSING THE CONNECTIVITY GAP
[SOURCE: The Weekly Wonk, AUTHOR: Jessica Ovington]
President Barack Obama said this nearly a year ago during his announcement of the ConnectED initiative, a plan to equip every school in the United States with high-speed Internet access by the end of the decade. According to Open Technology Institute analysts Danielle Kehl and Sarah Morris, “nearly sixty percent of schools in the US today lack sufficient wireless capacity to support the needs of students” -- a somewhat alarming statistic when compared to the vastness of 21st century connectivity. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of E-rate initiative funds, a program that helps schools and libraries to obtain affordable communications services and broadband Internet. In an effort to narrow this connectivity divide, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler recently characterized the wireless Internet issue as a national priority. He recently released his draft order for E-rate modernization, which would implement a number of changes to the program by the summer of 2014 -- including increasing funding by $2 billion. According to Lindsey Tepe, a program associate in New America’s Education Policy Program, the order highlights three main objectives:
Closing the Wi-Fi gap for schools and libraries, while phasing down support for non-broadband services.
Making current funds go further by cutting back the matching fund ratio, as well as increasing transparency on how funds are currently spent.
Updating program administration processes to make the program faster, simpler, and more efficient.
benton.org/node/189859 | Weekly Wonk, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

JOURNALISM

WHY THE SCOTUS CELLPHONE DECISION IS A WIN FOR PRESS FREEDOM
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Josh Stearns]
[Commentary] According to the Supreme Court, police need a warrant to search the cellphones of people they arrest. The unanimous decision, which was handed down, is being heralded as a major victory for privacy rights and a landmark case with implications far beyond cellphones. Many of the most important debates surrounding press freedom and privacy right now focus on how our fundamental freedoms, so long expressed and protected in the physical world, will translate to the digital age. n response to the ruling Geoffrey King of the Committee to Protect Journalists said, "Today's decision closes a dangerous loophole faced by journalists who use mobile devices for news-gathering and reporting." The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, National Press Photographers Association and other news organizations filed a brief in the cases at the Supreme Court arguing that cellphone searches can interfere with news-gathering. "A typical journalist's phone contains a wealth of private data," the news organizations wrote in the brief. "At any time a journalist's phone may include drafts of stories, interviews, corresponding photos or video, information about sources, and other confidential information necessary for reporting." The decision is an important recognition that advances in our technology shouldn't result in erosions of our liberty. The case comes at a moment of renewed interest and concern for how government and law enforcement are using cellphones to track people. While the case is not likely to have an immediate impact on the practices of the NSA, it may create a new opening in that debate down the road. [Stearns is Director, Journalism and Sustainability at the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation]
benton.org/node/189922 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

A NUTRITIOUS NEWS DIET
[SOURCE: Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Many people spend a great deal of time thinking about their diets. They try to eat the right foods in the right quantities. Sometimes they may wish they’d made better choices. Do news consumers spend as much time thinking about the news content they’re taking in via television, print, or, ever more likely, online? What is the quality and quantity of this news diet? Here are some questions a thoughtful news consumer could ask:
Is this news nourishing me? Does it help me really understand what is happening or is it just intended to provoke an emotional response?
How does this news report make me feel? Do I come away with thoughts that are angry or hopeless or discouraged?
Do I go only to a few familiar places to consume news, especially news “flavors” that fulfill my expectations by always confirming what I “already know”? A more balanced news diet might include several thoughtful sources that leave one with thoughts such as “I hadn’t considered that viewpoint before” or “I hadn’t thought about that possible solution.”
With access to a flood of news from around the globe online, people can easily overindulge in stories stuffed with shock or sentimentality. But consuming the right kind of news can inspire better thinking.
benton.org/node/189823 | Christian Science Monitor
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

GOOGLE GLASS AND PRIVACY
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Daniel Thomas]
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has waded into a growing debate about how people use Google’s smart glasses, which can be used to capture videos and take pictures without the knowledge of those in range. The arguments range from simple personal intrusion -- with offenders now coming to be called “glassholes” in the US -- to more serious concerns about how people can be spied on or identified for commercial reasons. The ICO said that the wearers of the glasses and other wearable technology will come under the same rules as CCTV, which means that they could breach the Data Protection Act in some circumstances. The main issue raised so far has been whether people have been given adequate notice that they might be filmed.
benton.org/node/190125 | Financial Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

June 2014

Waiver of Sunshine Prohibitions for Items On July 11, 2014 Open Commission Meeting

Dear FCC: What is Wi-Fi Without Greater Capacity?

What the FCC’s broadband tests really measure

Fighting Bulk Search Warrants In Court

FBI seizes 80,000 emails from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp in phone-hacking scandal

Meet Google's futurist-in-chief

Virtual Currencies: Emerging Regulatory, Law Enforcement, and Consumer Protection Challenges

CBO Scores Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act

Mobile app usage hits 51% of all time spent on digital media

June 27, 2014 (The Tech-Savvy Supreme Court)