1. Monthly archive
  2. November 2015

November 2015

Why media scrutiny only makes Donald Trump and Ben Carson stronger

[Commentary] Among the many conventional-wisdom-defying things about the candidacies of Dr Ben Carson and Donald Trump, one of the most notable is this: Critical media coverage has not only failed to weaken their support but has actually made it stronger. Why? One theory is, as Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) said in the third primary debate, “the American people don’t trust the media.” This is largely true. Recently, the annual American Values Survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, found only 47 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or even “some” confidence in news organizations. And nowhere is skepticism of the media more prevalent than on the political right. The problem with this convenient explanation is that Americans have been skeptical of the media for a long time. Gallup’s annual survey of media confidence hasn’t recorded majority trust since 2003, so the current state of affairs isn’t dramatically different from what it was during the last three presidential elections.

Carson and Trump -- better than their predecessors -- have successfully positioned themselves as the antitheses of status-quo politics while casting big-time media companies as symbols of entrenched Washington interests. For Carson and Trump, neither of which has held elected office, the media might as well be another career politician in a race that’s full of them. The press is just one more opponent to be defeated. Media reports are no longer reports; they’re attacks -- no different from what a political rival would launch.

Levers to Intensify Broadband Competition -- Part III

[Commentary] Given the current market, what are the appropriate government levers to intensify competition at this part of the cycle? Earlier, I explored spectrum policy and improving the economics of a telecommunication company upgrade. Now let's look at a third lever. My understanding of a third lever to intensify competition stems from discussions with my friend David Morken, the CEO of Bandwidth.com. In the summer of 2011, he suggested his company could use its existing assists to launch a Wi-Fi based mobile service. I first thought he was crazy but became a convert. A few months later, the company launched Republic Wireless, which is today the largest Wi-Fi first mobile company in the United States.

Time Warner Cable customers who bought modems may have to pay rental fee after Charter takeover

Thousands of Time Warner Cable customers who bought their own modems for high-speed Internet service could end up paying to rent one anyway after Charter completes its proposed purchase of the company. Charter is the only major pay-TV provider that bundles the rental fee for a cable modem into its price for Internet service, so there's no discount for customers who buy their own device. Its unusual policy could have a major effect in Los Angeles (CA), where the company is set to become the dominant pay-TV provider with about 1.8 million subscribers. In the coming months, federal regulators are expected to approve Charter's $56.7-billion purchase of Time Warner Cable, as well as a separate $10.4-billion acquisition of Bright House Networks, deals that would make Charter the nation's third-largest pay-TV firm with more than 20 million subscribers.

A leading manufacturer of retail cable modems, Zoom Telephonics Inc. in Boston (MA), wants the Federal Communications Commission to reject the deals because of the cable modem policy. And if not, Zoom wants a condition for approval to require that Charter separate its cable modem rental fee so customers who buy their own devices can get a break on their bills."The Communications Act says that cable companies should sell cable modem leases and Internet service separately," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who is representing Zoom."By combining the prices, Charter's customers are deprived of the ability to purchase advanced cable modems and save the cost of monthly rental fees," he said.

The FCC flexes its privacy muscles

[Commentary] Earlier in Nov, Cox Communications agreed to pay $595,000 and enter into a seven-year consent decree with the Federal Communications Commission to settle a case involving a hack that exposed the data of 61 Cox customers. This was the FCC's first privacy and data security enforcement action against a cable operator and is likely to reinforce concerns about the FCC's new authority in this area and how it will be implemented. Normally, privacy and data security matters are the domain of the Federal Trade Commission, which has substantial experience in the area. However, the FTC does not have jurisdiction over common carriers, which broadband providers now are thanks to the FCC's Open Internet Order. That order reclassified broadband providers as Title II common carriers, and thus shifted privacy and data security enforcement for these companies from the FTC to the FCC, which has much less experience in these matters. This lack of experience shows in the FCC's inaugural enforcement action.

In the future, the FCC should provide evidence that its enforcement actions yield positive net benefits. It seems unlikely that the way to do that is to apply a de facto strict liability standard to a company that was the victim of a security breach potentially affecting 0.001 percent of its customers (with minimal costs even to them), acted quickly to limit its effects and worked with law enforcement to apprehend the perpetrators.

[Thomas Lenard is president and senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute]

© 1994-2025 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.