June 2015

INCENTIVE AUCTION

INCENTIVE AUCTION NPRM
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Public notice]
Broadcasters will have the unique financial opportunity in the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction to voluntarily return some or all of their licensed spectrum usage rights in exchange for incentive payments. One of broadcasters' bid options will be to relinquish rights in order to share a channel with another licensee, allowing them to continue broadcasting while receiving payments that can fund new content, services, and delivery mechanisms. In the First Order on Reconsideration, the FCC refines the rules to provide greater flexibility and certainty regarding channel sharing agreements (CSAs). Among other things, we modify our rules to allow broadcasters that relinquish rights in the incentive auction in order to channel share to enter into CSAs after the auction and, whether they enter into CSAs before or after the auction, to determine the length of their agreements. In the companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we tentatively conclude that we should authorize channel sharing by full power and Class A station outside the incentive auction context, including "second generation" agreements in with one or both entities were parties to an auction-related CSA whose term has expired or that has otherwise been terminated. By providing greater flexibility and certainty regarding CSAs, our objective is to encourage voluntary participation by broadcasters int he incentive auction.
benton.org/headlines/expanding-economic-and-innovation-opportunities-spectrum-through-incentive-auctions-nprm | Federal Communications Commission
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

APPEALS COURT DENIES BROADCASTER AUCTION CHALLENGE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting & Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has denied a broadcaster challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's incentive auction framework. In August 2014, the National Association of Broadcasters challenged the FCC's broadcast incentive auction, saying that its framework "violates the Spectrum Act; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act." Sinclair also sued over the auction. The court rejected both challenges. "Petitioners press a series of arguments challenging the Commission’s implementation of the Spectrum Act’s mandate to expend 'all reasonable efforts' to preserve 'the coverage area and population served' of broadcasters reassigned to new channels in the repacking process. We reject petitioners’ arguments," a three-judge panel of the court said. NAB's primary beef is with how the FCC is proposing to predict TV station coverage areas, which it says could result in significant viewership loss. The NAB says that the FCC changed the methodology (the OET-69 bulletin) in contravention of the statute.
Appeals Court Denies Broadcaster Auction Challenge

benton.org/headlines/appeals-court-denies-broadcaster-auction-challenge | Broadcasting & Cable | Wheeler Statement | The Hill
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

SPEED KILLS, BUT SPECTRUM BUREAUCRACY FAILED TO APPLY THE BRAKES
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Harold Feld, Thomas Hazlett]
[Commentary] The tragic derailment of Amtrak Northeast Regional train #188, killing at least eight passengers in May, would likely have been prevented by a technology mandated by a 2008 law. Alas, the safety system, called Positive Train Control (PTC), has faced delays. Amtrak has tried to shift the blame to the Federal Communications Commission, claiming that the FCC refused to allocate the spectrum it sought. The charge is dangerously misleading. The FCC’s determination to let Amtrak buy the wireless rights it needed in an active secondary market avoided a contentious and time-consuming reallocation process, and ultimately solved Amtrak’s spectrum problem. If the company had embraced it years earlier, when many private railroad lines were buying wireless licenses for PTC, the tragedy of Amtrak #188 might have been avoided. With Washington conducting business as usual, precious years ticked away. Meanwhile, life-saving technology went undeployed, and prime radio spectrum went unused. That this bureaucratic snafu ended in the deaths of innocent American train commuters underscores the social cost of failing to fix public policies that shift productive activity to jockeying for special favors.
[Harold Feld is senior vice president of Public Knowledge. Thomas Hazlett is HH Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics at Clemson University]
benton.org/headlines/speed-kills-spectrum-bureaucracy-failed-apply-brakes | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NET NEUTRALITY

NET NEUTRALITY TAKES EFFECT TODAY. HERE'S HOW IT AFFECTS YOU.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Brian Fung]
[Commentary] It's official: As of the morning of June 12, the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules became the law of the land when a federal court rebuffed a plea by Internet providers to block the regulation. Here's exactly what they do, and what you can expect:
First things first: Is my Internet experience going to change? No, at least not right away. And that's the point: The government's rules are aimed at ensuring that you can keep getting to the Web sites you want to visit, watching the videos you want to watch and downloading the files you want to keep, all without interference from Internet providers.
What's going to happen in the long term? Well, Internet providers are suing to have the rules overturned. Industry officials predict the court case will go to oral arguments in December or January. If they win, then the FCC is back at square one. If they lose, the rules will stand. But for now, one thing is clear: The government has stronger tools than ever to monitor Internet providers.
benton.org/headlines/net-neutrality-takes-effect-today-heres-how-it-affects-you | Washington Post | LA Times | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

THE FCCC WILL NOW TAKE YOUR NET NEUTRALITY COMPLAINTS
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Jon Brodkin]
The Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules took effect June 12, and you can file complaints against your Internet service provider (or mobile data provider) on the FCC's website. The submission form already allowed consumers to file complaints about availability, interference, billing, equipment, privacy, and speed. The form has been updated to include "Open Internet/Net Neutrality" issues:
The complaint process is the same whether you're raising a stink about an equipment or speed problem or net neutrality. You'll get a tracking number and will be able to check the status of the complaint online. An FCC consumer representative will review your complaint and may contact you to gather more information. If the complaint is "actionable or constitute[s] a rule violation," the FCC sends the complaint to your Internet service provider, which must respond in writing within 30 days and copy you on the response. The core net neutrality rules prohibit blocking or throttling of lawful content, or "paid prioritization," in which online content providers pay for faster access to consumers. Other rules aren't as specific. There is no ban on data caps, but providers are not allowed to use caps to harm consumers or competitors. Technically, the FCC said it would address concerns about data allowances and usage-based pricing plans "under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage [standard] on a case-by-case basis."
benton.org/headlines/fcc-will-now-take-your-net-neutrality-complaints | Ars Technica
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

NET NEUTRALITY LITIGATION: ROUND 1 GOES TO THE FCC.
[SOURCE: Tales of the Sausage Factory, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] Good news! The DC Circuit denied the request by the carriers suing the Federal Communications Commission to prevent the FCC’s network neutrality rules and reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecom service. So what does all this mean for the litigation and the ongoing machinations in Congress around net neutrality? Short version -- the court was not impressed with the arguments of the carriers that the FCC was so whacky crazy power-usurping unlawful that this case is the slam-dunk reversal the carriers and their cheerleaders keep saying it is. Mind you, that doesn’t mean the FCC will win. But it does mean that opponents of net neutrality and Title II might want to ratchet back the TOTAL CONFIDENCE OF VICTORY they have exuded until now just a wee bit. It also provides a psychological lift to the pro-net neutrality side that the FCC can win this even in the DC Circuit. On the political side, Republicans had hoped that a stay would push Democrats to the bargaining table to avoid the litigation risk. Because the FCC’s odds improve with the denial of the stay, this may have the opposite effect, with Democrats more likely to wait for a court decision rather than try to strike a deal. This could either prompt Republicans to sweeten their offer, or double down on efforts for total repeal.
benton.org/headlines/net-neutrality-litigation-round-1-goes-fcc | Tales of the Sausage Factory
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

BROADCASTERS/CABLE

BROADCASTERS FILE RETRANS COMPLAINT AGAINST DIRECTV
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
A group of broadcasters have filed an emergency petition with the Federal Communications Commission charging DirecTV with failure to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith and wants the FCC to compel DirecTV to back up its price claim. The complaint was filed by Northwest Broadcasting, Broadcasting Licenses, Mountain Licenses, Stainless Broadcasting, Eagle Creek Broadcasting of Laredo, Bristlecone Broadcasting, and Blackhawk Broadcasting, saying they had come to an impasse over "unbridgeable" and apparently unbudgeable, "positions on price." The station groups say they have market data to support their price claims which it has shown to DirecTV, while DirecTV has refused to show them its "facts" for the price it is asking. The groups point out that the FCC can, if it chooses, compel "reciprocal fact disclosure" if it finds DirecTV was not negotiating in good faith, or "stonewalling," as the groups argue. They say it is an emergency because they have been negotiating new retrans deals since fall 2014, and that their expired contracts are on "life support" through multiple short-term extensions.
benton.org/headlines/broadcasters-file-retrans-complaint-against-directv | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

SILICON VALLEY’S CONSCIENCE
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Michelle Quinn]
[Commentary] Has the tech industry found its social conscience? That's what I've wondered lately as I've watched some of its key players doing things I wouldn't have expected to see as recently as a few months ago. Companies typically draw the blinds on in-house issues such as hiring, contracting and pay. They argue they are doing their part for society by creating good jobs and paying taxes. But this is not your father's Silicon Valley. Three factors jump out for me: 1) The Bay Area Protest Culture, 2) Enlightened Self-interest, and 3) Changing Expectations for a Company.
benton.org/headlines/occupy-silicon-valley-style | San Jose Mercury News
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

LABOR
At Gawker Media, New Economy Workers Strive to Form a New Kind of Union

A UNION AT GAWKER
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Rachel Swarns]
Workers at Gawker Media, a digital media outlet, made headlines with their decision to form a union, but they say they are simply looking for a way to provide some stability in a turbulent industry. Gawker’s new employees typically start at $40,000 to $50,000 a year and enjoy generous benefits, its workers say. Its tech-savvy employees came of age in the new economy — about 40 percent rarely, if ever, set foot inside the company’s brick-and-mortar headquarters in Manhattan — and even the office workers often spend the first few hours of their workdays at home, reporting on media and culture, gossip and cars, technology and celebrities from the comfort of their couches.
benton.org/headlines/gawker-media-new-economy-workers-strive-form-new-kind-union | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

FRANCE WANTS GOOGLE TO APPLY 'RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN' RULING WORLDWIDE OR FACE PENALTIES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Mark Scott]
France’s privacy watchdog called on Google to apply a European data protection ruling to its global domains or face financial penalties. The move relates to a decree from Europe’s top court in 2014 that allowed anyone with connections to the region to request that links about themselves be removed from search engine results. That so-called right to be forgotten ruling has pitted Google, whose search engine holds a roughly 90 percent market share in Europe, against some of the region’s privacy regulators. The authorities want the ruling to apply to all of Google’s domains, including Google.com, although the company contends that Europe’s privacy legislation should apply only to regional domains like Google.de in Germany. French authorities are now increasing the pressure on the American company, saying that Google must apply the ruling across all of its domains in the next 15 days or face penalties including a one-off fine of up to 300,000 euros, or almost $340,000. In 2014, Google was fined €150,000 for failing to adhere to the country’s rules in a separate privacy case.
benton.org/headlines/france-wants-google-apply-right-be-forgotten-ruling-worldwide-or-face-penalties | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis

June 2015

European countries back Obama Administration's domain transition

June 16, 2015 (John Carroll)

Occupy, Silicon Valley style

At Gawker Media, New Economy Workers Strive to Form a New Kind of Union

John Carroll, editor who led LA Times to 13 Pulitzer

Vietnam’s Mobile Revolution Catapults Millions Into the Digital Age

Expanding Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions NPRM

FCC Allows Post-Auction Channel Share Deals

Speed kills, but spectrum bureaucracy failed to apply the brakes