1. Monthly archive
  2. March 2016

March 2016

House Communications Subcommittee Hearing: Oversight of the FCC

The House Communications Subcommittee continued its oversight of the Federal Communications Commission at a hearing. Members examined various issues related to the FCC’s policy decisions and the process by which it reaches them, including FCC process reform, the FCC’s actions regarding set top boxes, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to impose new privacy rules on Internet service providers (ISPs). Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) expressed his disappointment in Chairman Wheeler’s reluctance to adopt an open and transparent process for his proposal to impose privacy rules on ISPs. Commissioner Pai and Commissioner O’Reilly echoed Chairman Walden’s sentiment and expressed concern with the top-down, non-transparent nature of the FCC. Chairman Walden concluded, “This is 2016, this is not 1816, we want an open and transparent process so the public can comment.” During Vice Chairman Bob Latta’s (R-OH) questioning on the FCC’s set-top box proposal, Commissioner Pai categorized the FCC’s proposal as “Back to the future. Instead of moving to an app-based world where consumers can finally free themselves of this expensive, clunky equipment that consumes a lot of energy and doesn’t provide the functionality they want, the FCC’s doubling down on 1990s technology.”

House Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) stressed the importance of an open and transparent process, stating, “As the Chairman seeks to implement what is likely the final year of his agenda, it is no less important now that matters are addressed through a process that is open and transparent, informed through robust debate, and resolved through bipartisan compromise. It is only through this approach that we can avoid the uncertainty and threat to investment and jobs creation that a flawed process promises to deliver.” Chairman Walden added, “We know the commission has implemented only half of the recommendations of the 2014 FCC Process Reform Working Group. That is why I believe true reforms require changes in law that can transcend any particular chairman or commission. The public deserves no less. Unfortunately, sharp divisions within the commission are widely known. With the rapidly changing communications marketplace, we’ve never needed this independent agency to work together for the public interest more than now.”

What’s Holding Back Women in Tech?

Technology companies have disrupted other industries with apps that dispatch cars, housekeepers or pizzas in a matter of minutes. But tech firms lag behind those old-line businesses when it comes to advancing women. That is the main finding of a McKinsey & Co. and LeanIn.Org report on the status of women in tech.

Not only are women underrepresented at all levels of technology firms, particularly in key engineering, product and finance roles, researchers found, but plenty of those women also believe that their gender is holding them back at work. The data, gathered from 26 tech companies and a survey of about 9,000 male and female employees, suggests that women currently in tech feel pessimistic about the climate in their companies. Some 29.9% of female tech employees polled said they felt gender played a role in their missing a promotion or raise, and 37.1% of female tech employees said they felt their gender would disadvantage them in the future. In nontech fields, a smaller share of women—21.6% and 22.8% respectively—felt that way. Some female executives say that stems from a paucity of women leading tech companies. “If you can’t see an example of what you could be, you really aren’t going to have that extra incentive to break through any types of barriers,” said Julia Hartz, co-founder and president of online ticketing platform Eventbrite Inc. The predominantly male cultures at many tech companies can make them lonely places for women, said Caroline Simard, senior director of research at Stanford University’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research, which works with companies to identify and root out gender bias .“When you’re the only woman in the room, such as in a top leadership position in a tech company, that feeling of isolation on a day-to-day basis can be difficult,” Simard said.

Donald Trump’s campaign manager says he might sue BuzzFeed for libel. It would be tough to win.

Donald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said that he is mulling a lawsuit against BuzzFeed, which reported that the point man for the Republican presidential front-runner has made unwanted sexual advances toward female journalists. "I'm not a public person," Lewandowski said. "I told [BuzzFeed reporter] McKay Coppins that his story was inaccurate. I told him not to publish. And he chose to run the story anyway." Lewandowski's assertion that he is "not a public person" would actually be a critical point in a hypothetical libel case.

The standard for proving libel is higher for public figures than it is for private citizens. Famous people must show that defamatory statements were made with "actual malice" — meaning that a news outlet knew it was publishing a false report or recklessly ignored reasons to doubt the veracity of its information. Regular Joes, by contrast, need only demonstrate negligence. So would the guy running the campaign of the likely GOP nominee be able to convince a court that he is a private citizen? Probably not, said David Ardia, co-director of the Center for Media Law and Policy at the University of North Carolina. "He is not someone who has shied away from interactions with the media," said Ardia, a former assistant counsel at The Washington Post. "He has voluntarily injected himself into the campaign."

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