1. Monthly archive
  2. October 2015

October 2015

Facebook Goes On Privacy Offensive in Europe

Facebook is gearing up to fight a cascade of privacy investigations in Europe, arguing that regulators are overreaching in ways that could hurt the social network’s ability to protect users against hacking and fraud.

Ahead of a court ruling due in Belgium, Facebook is attacking this case against it as an ill-thought-out attempt to regulate privacy that would instead remove one of the tools Facebook uses to stop automated programs from hacking into users’ accounts. The case, brought by Belgium’s Privacy Commission, is the most advanced of five coordinated Facebook investigations launched by regulators from Germany to Spain. If it loses the case, in which the regulator has requested fines of €250,000 ($284,000) a day, Facebook has threatened to make Belgian users endure more identity checks when logging into the website to guard against hacking.

FCC Review of Charter-TWC Merger Focusing on Broadband Impact

Regulators weighing Charter’s $55.1 billion bid for Time Warner Cable are focusing on how the merger would affect Internet service. Requests for information were sent by the Federal Communications Commission to companies including top telephone providers AT&T and Verizon, largest cable provider Comcast, online video leader Netflix and Internet-traffic carrier Cogent Communications. This is the second time the FCC has asked questions related to the merger’s impact on broadband service. The agency in Sept asked Charter for documents about its customer gains or losses to Web video and whether that has slowed or blocked access to rival services.

The FCC is in early stages of its review, having reached the 32nd day toward its informal 180-day deadline for deciding the merger. Questions from the agency, in the requests sent Oct. 9, included whether AT&T and Verizon plan to offer faster Internet service and how those companies and Comcast use data caps. The letters also asked Cogent and Netflix to offer comment on Charter’s pledge not to charge for accepting traffic onto its network.

What is localism and does it still matter?

[Commentary] That's an important question in Washington (DC) where cynics, "public interest" groups and the occasional misguided regulator often mock the role that local TV stations play in providing service to community. Inside the Beltway, the politically polarizing cable networks provide what passes for riveting cocktail conversation for Washington elites. But in the real world -- outside of a few square miles of the DC bubble -- local television reigns supreme as most-watched and most-valued.

The reality is that there’s a strong possibility that many local TV stations in smaller and medium-sized markets will be diminished or forced off the air if federal regulators change the regulatory paradigm in a way that creates added financial pressures. In a world of pay-TV giants -- where just four companies control 79 percent of all pay-TV homes -- localism is fostered by exclusivity and retransmission consent rules that allow broadcasters to remain competitive. So yes, localism matters -- and localism is sustained by revenues that allow broadcast TV stations to produce quality local news and that prevent marquee sports and entertainment programming from migrating to cable and satellite TV. Critical choices are now before the FCC. And yes, the very essence of "localism" and the future of local TV stations that deliver the news and programming Americans turn to the most hangs in the balance. We hope the Commission makes the right choice.

[Kenny is director of public affairs for TVfreedom.org, a coalition of local broadcasters, community advocates, network TV affiliate associations and others advocating for preserving the retransmission consent regime]

© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.