May 2015

A Tale of Two Commissioners

[Commentary] What a difference six years makes. A crucial federal agency that once seemed powerless is now empowered. I am talking about the Federal Communications Commission, which has emerged from a period of vacillation into a body that makes decisions and backs them up. And though there are multiple factors that made this happen, ultimately, this is a tale of two commissioners. One seemed the perfect advocate for strong regulation of Internet access to the benefit of consumers, an entrepreneur and tech executive who had the President’s ear (they even played basketball together!). And the other was regarded with suspicion among the open-Internet crowd  --  because he was once the chief lobbyist for the cable industry. Guess which one stood up for the public.

What accounts for this difference between 2009 and 2015? Part of the answer is that President Barack Obama is in his second term and his administration is looking for executive actions that can move the needle for the country; the FCC, although an independent agency, can read the President’s speeches like everyone else, sense the change in the wind, and act accordingly. But a major reason for the transformation is the role being played by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Because he knows these industries well from his decades of experience, Chairman Wheeler’s nomination in May 2013 was greeted with dismay by many people in the public interest community. But it turns out that knowing what’s going on can be a plus. And character makes a big difference: once he decides he’s ready to move, Chairman Wheeler is the happy warrior. He is strong, he speaks with conviction, he cheers on his staff, and he follows up his speeches with action. Most importantly, he genuinely cares  --  he can get pretty sappy on the subject  --  about the consequences of telecommunications policy decisions for the country.

[Susan Crawford is co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University]

The Big Meh

[Commentary] Everyone knows that we live in an era of incredibly rapid technological change, which is changing everything. But what if what everyone knows is wrong? And I’m not being wildly contrarian here. A growing number of economists, looking at the data on productivity and incomes, are wondering if the technological revolution has been greatly overhyped -- and some technologists share their concern.

We’ve been here before. The era of the “productivity paradox” was a two-decade-long period during which technology seemed to be advancing rapidly -- personal computing, cellphones, local area networks and the early stages of the Internet -- yet economic growth was sluggish and incomes stagnant. Many hypotheses were advanced to explain that paradox, with the most popular probably being that inventing a technology and learning to use it effectively aren’t the same thing. Give it time, said economic historians, and computers will eventually deliver the goods (and services). This optimism seemed vindicated when productivity growth finally took off circa 1995. Progress was back -- and so was America, which seemed to be at the cutting edge of the revolution. But a funny thing happened on the way to the techno-revolution. We did not, it turned out, get a sustained return to rapid economic progress. At this point, the whole digital era, spanning more than four decades, is looking like a disappointment. New technologies have yielded great headlines, but modest economic results. Why?

In 5 years, 80 percent of the whole Internet will be online video

Netflix accounts for one-third of Internet traffic at peak hours. Toss in YouTube, and that figure rises to roughly half of all bandwidth consumed. But even that's small potatoes compared with what's coming. In five years, 80 percent of the entire world's Internet consumption will be dominated by video. That number will be even higher in the United States, approaching 85 percent. That's according to the latest projections from Cisco, which publishes an annual study peering into the near future of the Web.

The newest report predicts that by 2019, the Internet will have become more or less a big video pipe. Part of the growth will come from adding new people to the Internet -- for the first time, over half the world's population will be digitally connected. But individual Internet users are also expected to consume more video over time, and at a higher quality, which will put tremendous new burdens on the world's Internet infrastructure. When you see the Internet as a huge distribution channel for video, it puts virtually everything that tech and communications companies are doing into perspective. Telecom firms like Verizon are racing to expand their cellular networks so that they can deliver video over LTE. Cable companies are fleshing out their public Wi-Fi hotspots so users can watch videos outside their homes. Content providers like HBO and CBS are putting their programming on the Internet so that customers don't have to be tethered to their television sets. Implicit in this idea is that mobile devices will be the primary way users will access all this video. And researchers agree on that point.

Verizon Wireless yet again makes it more expensive to upgrade early

When Verizon Wireless unveiled its "Verizon Edge" early-upgrade plan in July 2013, the company allowed customers to switch to a new smartphone once they paid 50 off percent of the cost of their original device. But the amount that Verizon Edge customers had to pay to be eligible for an early upgrade kept creeping up, to 60 percent in June 2014 and then 75 percent in October 2014. Now, it's come to the logical conclusion: you can only upgrade to a new device once you've paid off the entire cost of the existing one. Instead of providing a hardware subsidy and requiring an up-front device payment, Verizon Edge splits the cost of the device into 24 monthly installments, except when customers pay it off early in order to upgrade. Customers on standard contracts pay $40-per-month line charges for each phone (in addition to data charges), while Verizon Edge customers pay $15 per line.

Mary Meeker Report Highlights Facebook, Twitter Growth Slowing

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner Mary Meeker unveiled her annual State of the Internet report. Among the findings was a slide highlighting a troubling trend for both Facebook and Twitter. “Average revenue per user” growth, or ARPU as the metric is called on Wall Street, has been steadily declining for both companies over the past year. In other words, Facebook and Twitter are adding new users, but revenue growth isn’t keeping up at the same rate.

Penn State Bounces Fraternity For 3 Years Over Photo Scandal

Tripling a penalty that was announced this spring, Penn State has shut down the school's Kappa Delta Rho fraternity chapter for three years, after an inquiry over a Facebook group page that collected pictures of nude women also uncovered other transgressions. The suspension is based on an investigation after reports in March that fraternity members were posting photos to a private Facebook page that showed nude women, some of whom appeared unconscious.

Embracing broadband policy innovation from abroad

[Commentary] I’m often asked what lessons can be gleaned in the United States from the experiences of other top-tier global broadband Internet leaders. My response always begins by pointing out that a significant set of indigenous factors in the US, South Korea, Japan, the UK, and France contribute to, or deter, progress in individual top-tier countries, regardless of what affirmative steps are taken. A number of localized characteristics favor broadband development independent of concerted policy actions.

For example, geography and demographics can support or deter broadband development tasks depending on the nation’s size, population density, per capita income, percentage of high-rise housing, and household size. Consequently, the context of broadband Internet ecosystem development in a particular country often is unique to that country’s physical, economic, political, cultural, and social environment. Attempting to generalize from even the countries with the best policies is unlikely to yield meaningful policy outcomes. My study, unlike others, is careful not to develop global inferences that are based on a specific top-tier global broadband Internet leader’s particular circumstances. That said, during my research, I also discovered that there may be ways to stimulate broadband demand on a national scale, and that these models may indeed hold promise if they were to be initiated in the United States.

Google launches program to help people with disabilities

Google has launched a program to help people living with disabilities. The company is putting $20 million in Google.org grants behind nonprofits that use emerging technologies to increase independence for people living with disabilities. And it wants your help: Google is issuing an open call to identify new areas of opportunity. Google is kicking things off by supporting two organizations:

  • It is giving a $600,000 grant to the Enable community, which connects people who need prosthetics with volunteers who use 3-D printers to design, print, assemble and fit them for free.
  • It is also giving a $500,000 grant to World Wide Hearing, which will develop, prototype and test an "extremely low-cost" tool kit for hearing loss using smartphone technology that’s widely available in the developing world.

NSA reformers to Sen McConnell: You have one 'viable' option left

Two key supporters of the House-passed National Security Agency reform bill are amplifying their calls for the Senate to pass the legislation. Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said the USA Freedom Act "is the only bill" that can pass the Senate before the end of the weekend. "Passage of the USA FREEDOM Act remains the only viable legislative option that will bring real reform and ensure no lapse in intelligence authorities," the two said in a statement. "The House-passed bill is the only bill the Senate can pass and send to the President before Sunday night’s deadline."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to extend those provisions, but was repeatedly blocked early Saturday morning, and a "clean" extension of the law appears unlikely. Sens Leahy, Goodlatte and other supports of the USA Freedom Act are using the current stalemate over how to move forward on the intelligence agency's program to redouble their efforts to pass for the reform legislation

Let Oracle own APIs, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

The right of companies to use key elements of computer code, known as application programming interfaces (APIs), was cast deeper into doubt after the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court not to hear a controversial case that pits Google and a long list of supporters against Oracle. The news came after the Supreme Court asked the Obama Administration in January to weigh in on a lower court ruling in 2014 that favored Oracle, and shocked many in the tech industry. The issue before the court is when, if at all, APIs can be protected by copyright. The outcome has serious repercussions not just for Google, but the entire software industry, since APIs act as a sort of lingua franca that allow different computer programs to deliver instructions to each other.

In the case of Oracle and Google, the dispute turns on the search giant’s use of certain Java APIs for its Android software. Java is a programming language that was developed by Oracle’s predecessor, Sun Microsystems, and is widely used by software developers. Google, backed by tech trade groups and law professors, does not dispute that computer code can be copyrighted. The parties argue instead that Google only used a small portion of Oracle’s Java Standard Library, and did so only in order to use common signposts or headers, rather than reinventing the instructions from scratch. The argument, in effect, is that developers should be able to use these small chunks of code, which serve as industry standards, free of copyright restrictions. US District Judge William Alsup, a respected Silicon Valley judge, initially sided with Google in 2012 after teaching himself Java for the trial. He found that the APIs were functional, and fell on the wrong side of copyright law’s “idea/expression dichotomy” and merger doctrine -- these are rules that prevents copyright law from becoming too broad, and covering everyday things like menus and simple instructions.