December 2014

Clearing up the confusion about Sunlight’s analysis of network neutrality comments to the FCC

[Commentary] Our commitment to transparency, to open data and to the informed use of that data prompted us to do this follow up to address some of the concerns and reaction to Sunlight's latest analysis of public comments on the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to regulate Internet traffic:

A number of groups on the pro-network neutrality side of the debate are telling us that they submitted far more comments than we found in the download from the FCC. As we pointed out in our initial post, there’s a big discrepancy between the number of comments the FCC says it received and the number we were able to find in the files the agency released to the public
The conservative group that appears to have generated the vast majority of comments in the second set of comments we analyzed said we confirmed it “won” the comment period. In fact, as we were careful to point out in both our first and second post, these numbers cannot be read the same way as a baseball score. That’s partly because of data noise and partly because of the way those numbers were generated, both factors which we went to some pains to elucidate in our post.

If nothing else, this exercise points out both the value and the shortcomings of government data and suggests that for the sake of decision makers, and the taxpayers who pay them, it might be worth investing in a more modern, reliable way of compiling and reporting this information.

Why it doesn't matter if network neutrality opponents "won" the FCC comment war

[Commentary] The vast majority of network neutrality comments -- Sunlight says 88 percent in the latest batch -- were form letters created with help from a handful of activist groups on either side of the fight. So the ratio of pro- and anti-network neutrality comments may tell us less about what voters think than about how well-funded each side's activist groups are.

More importantly, the agency comment process was never supposed to be a popularity contest. The ratio of comments on each side has never been an important factor in agency decision-making. One submission that raises an issue the agency hadn't considered before can be more valuable than a thousand from people who simply filled out a form on an activist group's website. But big-picture policy decisions -- especially those that are hotly contested by voters -- should be made by Congress itself. Congress is specifically organized to resolve political issues like this. It has hundreds of elected officials whose job is to represent the interests of their constituents.

Cat's Out Of The Bag: Network Neutrality Won't Harm Investment

[Commentary] The argument about diminished investment by broadband providers if they're reclassified as common carriers under Title II of the 1996 Communications Act is simply untrue.

Telecommunication analysts, business leaders, and pro-network neutrality groups alike have debunked this argument time and time again. It is a wonder the Title II opposition keeps making the anti-investment argument at all. Refuting this argument is of special interest to National Hispanic Media Coalition for two reasons. One, we believe strongly that Internet Service Providers should be investing more to provide better and more affordable service to the Latino community and other communities of color, who often find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. And two, a handful of our allies in the civil rights community disagree with us on this point -- opposing Title II because they believe that it would negatively impact investment. Given that our positions typically align with these groups when it comes to broadband access and adoption issues, fully vetting this claim was a top priority for NHMC.

Urban League parrots telecom donors' network neutrality stance

[Commentary] Critics say National Urban League President Marc Moria's decision to support Comcast on the issue of network neutrality had more to do with money and relationships than with Internet policy. It turns out that Comcast’s David Cohen has sat on the Urban League’s board of trustees since 2008. In addition, the Comcast Foundation, headed by Cohen, gave the National Urban League and some of its more than 100 affiliates almost $2 million from 2012 to 2013. The Urban League says Cohen’s position and the donations from the foundation have had no bearing on its position on the network neutrality issue.

Competition is the only way to preserve an open Internet

[Commentary] Everyone is for preserving an open Internet, but replacing a competitive industry with a regulated utility is not the way to do it. Broadband competition has produced a remarkably innovative, dynamic market in which output and performance double, and prices are cut in half, every few years. You can’t say that about public utilities. There is plenty of economic evidence that public utilities underperform competitive markets. The broadband sector, by contrast, is growing and innovating, literally, as fast as the Internet itself. Competition isn’t an option in every industry, but it is working and producing great results in the market for broadband. Promoting competition, not replacing it with a public utility model, is the best way to preserve the economic and social benefits of a free and open Internet.

The Future of Privacy

This report is a look into the future of privacy in light of the technological change, ever-growing monetization of digital encounters, and shifting relationship of citizens and their governments that is likely to extend through the next decade. To explore the future of privacy, we canvassed thousands of experts and Internet builders to share their predictions. Some 55 percent of these respondents said “no” they do not believe that an accepted privacy-rights regime and infrastructure would be created in the coming decade, while 45 percent said “yes” that such an infrastructure would be created by 2025. Common thoughts included: Privacy and security are foundational issues of the digital world, people are living in an unprecedented condition of ubiquitous surveillance, people require little more inducement than personal convenience to disclose their personal information, norms are always evolving, privacy will certainly change in coming years, an arms race dynamic is unfolding, and that renegotiation and compromise will be a constant in privacy-security policy space.

Why campaigns won't stop using our data: Because the data says we like it

[Commentary] Campaigns and political groups today have deep troves of data on us. And tech-savvy political practitioners say that while they, too, worry about data abuse, they're not about to give up figuring out clever ways to use that information. Why? Because the data shows that we actually really, really like it when they do.

A 2007 study in the journal Marketing Letters found that consumers are highly sensitive to whether we think our data is being used in ways relevant to the purpose at hand. "What seems to matter in the political space is whether it's a group I've opted into, one that I'm ideologically aligned with. If I want that group to be as powerful as possible, my concerns about privacy are probably going to be a lot less." says Daniel Kreiss, assistant professor of political communications at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Operators See Sports, Broadcast Surcharges Rise in 2015

As programming costs rise with little hope of near term relief, several operators said they are expecting to increase their sports and broadcast surcharges in 2015 to help lessen the blow. Cablevision Systems was one of the latest to join the growing list of pay TV distributors looking to increase the surcharges, warning customers that it will hike its surcharge by about $1 per month. DirecTV has implemented its surcharge in markets with multiple regional sports networks, including New York and Los Angeles. The company said it anticipates a modest increase in RSN surcharges in 2015 as part of its overall annual rate increases in February.

Hold the beacon: McDonald’s tests wireless offers near stores

McDonald's is among the early adopters for beacon technology, working with Piper for a test of the Bluetooth beacons in Columbus (GA) with positive results.

Using Piper’s beacon implementation over a four-week trial, sales of McChicken sandwiches jumped 8 percent over the prior month while McNuggets saw a 7.5 percent boost. Some of the higher sales were likely due to the beacons which lets retailers wirelessly push promotions and coupons to the smartphones of nearby customers. Beacon technology is seen as a potential boon for retailers since it provides passive access to customers in-store as well as potential customers that could be walking by. As the beacons “see” nearby smartphones, they can push promotional coupons or other deals, which in turn could influence purchase decisions.

Progress report on modernizing Communications Act

[Commentary] In 2014, the House Commerce Committee has asked for and received public input through a series of white papers and held a hearing with former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission to better understand their perspectives on the law.

Commerce Committee Chairman Upton (R-MI) noted that the changes in technology since the last update in 1996 have been dramatic and existing laws have failed to keep pace with the vibrant and dynamic telecommunications industry. Former FCC Chairman Richard Wiley suggested that the objective of a statutory rewrite should not be to legislate premised on the current state of the marketplace or even on predictions of what it may look like in the future. Instead, he concluded, Congress should consider a flexible and technologically-neutral framework that will be capable of adapting to technical invention and innovation, whatever it may prove to be.

Benton

Search