July 2015

Spotty indoor cell coverage is becoming less of a problem for consumers. And it's not because of improved mobile networks. Phone users are lapping-up Wi-Fi calling, a survey says. That's where phone calls are routed over Wi-Fi by the mobile network, as distinct from consumer-installed VoIP-style apps and other tools. Among other things, the users polled said Wi-Fi calling was more conducive to longer calls than their previous cell-only mobile network experience. S

ixty-one percent of Wi-Fi calling users say they are making longer and more frequent voice calls, according to the study by telecommunication equipment maker Ericsson. And people particularly like being able to make calls and send texts in places that they were not previously able to, such as inside tricky structures, like their homes; in Wi-Fi-sprouting subways; and on airplanes, the research says.

[Commentary] In effect, digital content is being divided between a lucrative high-end entertainment world, where licensors receive a negotiated fee for allowing the distribution of their property, and a low-end publishing world where content is expected to be “free,” supporting itself on often elusive advertising sales and ad splits. In this particular deal, publishers can sell ads on their articles and keep all of the revenue, or have Facebook sell ads in exchange for 30 percent. An important and grievous question is how this anomalous division in the media business came to pass. The more immediate question is about whether Facebook’s “instant articles” and other republishing initiatives are digging a deeper hole for publishers or helping them get out of the one they are already in. Publishers of course believe the latter is true, or why else would they be doing such deals? On the other hand, publishers have largely found themselves in this dismal situation because of their past bad decisions -- accepting the general free ethos, bowing to a vast catchall of casual and formal sharing and reposting agreements, and failing to challenge an ever-expanding interpretation of fair use.

It seems only logical to doubt the business acumen of people who have been singularly inept when it comes to protecting their interests in the world of digital distribution. There are of course differences between entertainment content and news and other editorial matter, and perhaps that accounts for why the old rules and basic business models that worked so well for so long should not apply in a digital context. Or perhaps publishers are just shamefully bad businessmen.

[Michael Wolff is the author of "Television is the New Television: The Unexpected Triumph of Old Media in the Digital Age"]

The Federal Communications Commission has finally issued its lengthy text plus commissioners' scathing comments from June's contentious decision regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order. Predictably, the final details, published on Friday, July 10, triggered even more critiques along with speculation about how the restrictions will affect marketing, promotions and other outreach initiatives from media companies. It also quickly triggered a court challenge. ACA International, an association of credit and collection professionals, on July 11 filed a suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit seeking judicial review of the FCC's June 18 TCPA ruling. Other organizations are expected to seek an overturn of the FCC's ruling, according to legal observers who follow the case.

Although much of the concern about automated calling -- including text and voice calls to mobile devices -- has involved the financial and health services industries, many observers voiced concern about the extent of the FCC's ruling. Online service providers, entertainment companies, sports franchises and social media networks have already been hit with lawsuits by consumers who claim they improperly received robocalls or other prohibited contacts. In its ruling, which sprawls over nearly 200 pages, the FCC noted, "We have not viewed 'legitimate' businesses as somehow exempt from the statute." The agency insisted that its goal is to "Strengthen the core protections of the TCPA." Among the robocall factors it confirmed are that "Internet-to-phone text messages require consumer consent" and "Text messages are 'calls' subject to the TCPA."

The Supreme Court’s decision to not weigh in on a copyright fight between Google and Oracle could have severe implications for future software development, say public interest groups. The court late in June declined to hear Google’s appeal of a ruling favorable to Oracle. A district court found for Google, but that ruling was overturned by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Google appealed to the Supreme Court -- which declined to hear the case. The court asked the White House to weigh in on the case because it involved copyrights, which could involve the Administration. The White House, in its filing, told the justices not to hear the case and instead send it back to the lower courts.

“It’s difficult for copyright lawyers to understand sort of the boundaries of what is copyrightable,” said Evan Engstrom, the policy director at startup advocacy group Engine, which filed a brief supporting Google. He said it is even harder “for programmers to understand what you’re allow to repurpose and use,” and that the Supreme Court has added to the uncertainty. Others argue that the effects are overstated, in part because Federal Circuit court rulings lack significant power as precedents. Software developers, they say, also appreciate being able to build on other people’s work and would be unlikely to enforce copyright protection en masse against their peers. Still, it is possible that the decision to let the Federal Circuit’s ruling stand could trigger new copyright infringement lawsuits related to APIs. Charles Duan, the Director of Public Knowledge’s Patent Reform Project, said he worried that uncertainty in the courts -- where there are some older rulings that conflict with the Federal Circuit’s decision -- might lead to a fractured software landscape.