1. Monthly archive
  2. April 2016

April 2016

EU widens battle with Google

The European Union widened its landmark antitrust battle against Google, accusing the company of abusing its dominance of the smartphone operating system Android.

The new charge sheet will deepen US accusations that EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager is disproportionately targeting US technology companies with her antitrust and tax avoidance cases against Apple, Google, Amazon and Qualcomm. The EU said it had come to the “preliminary view” that Google was abusing its dominance of smartphone operating systems to pre-install its own search engine and browser as a default on smartphones. Commissioner Vestager complained that this would stifle competition by closing off the market for smaller, innovative app makers and service providers. Brussels also accused the company of preventing the installation of Google apps on smartphones that used modified versions of Android, called “Android forks”. In an unexpected third charge, Commissioner Vestager said Google was giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.

House Communications Subcommittee Approves Lifeline CURB Act

A divided House Communications Subcommittee approved by a vote of 17 to 11 the CURB Lifeline Act (HR 4884) along with a handful of other communications-related bills. The Lifeline CURB Act caps the Lifeline fund at its current $1.5 billion annually—the Federal Communications Commission voted to increase the subsidy to $2.25 billion and even a Republican-backed compromise would have raised it to $2 billion. It would also prevent the subsidy—which is $9.25 per month—from being used for a cell phone or other device and would also end voice-only mobile service subsidies—the FCC proposals phases out voice-only mobile over several years and even then allows for extending that if necessary.

The bill passed after lengthy debate along party lines and after a series of amendments from Democratic Reps were voted down. Democratic Reps do not want the program cut or capped, saying it could adversely impact broadband adoption for seniors, veterans, and low-income families. One Democratic amendment was adopted. It required the FCC Comptroller General to study whether a cap on the fund discourages waste, fraud and abuse. April 19’s vote is just the first step in what could be a long partisan path. The House must wait until mid-May to begin debating appropriations bills, so it’s not hard to imagine a full committee vote next, followed by a floor vote. (There has been no announcement to that effect from House GOP leaders.) If the bill made it through the House, the Senate would move slower. But there appears to be willingness among Republicans to consider putting some pressure back on the independent agency. “We don’t like where the FCC is headed,” Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) said.

Remarks of Commissioner Clyburn at 2016 NAB Show

For those of you who do not know me well, I am an unabashed fan of traditional media outlets, particularly local broadcast television and radio. Why? Broadcast television continues to shape the way I see things, influence how I express my thoughts and view the world. One challenge is how local newsrooms report on race in America.

At its core, the relationship between a journalist and her audience begins with ‘trust.’ Yet, a recent study by the Media Insight Project found that just six percent of Americans say they have “a great deal of confidence in the media.” Among African American and Hispanic Americans, this same study found that they are “more likely than white Americans to say it is very important that they see their communities and people like them in the reporting.” Similarly, 65 percent of African Americans surveyed, said the presentation of diverse views is extremely/very important, compared to 56 percent of white Americans. Knowing that people of color place even greater importance on the value of diversity, leads me to the question: what can or should the Federal Communications Commission do to strengthen viewpoint diversity. Allow me to share with you today some of the Commission’s recent successes as well as some of the opportunities that lie ahead.

Remarks of Commissioner O'Rielly at 2016 NAB Show Re: "The Black Box of the FCC's Set Top Box Proposal"

Most people are calling this the set top box item, but this informal title is a complete misnomer. You might think from hearing it that the Federal Communications Commission is merely tweaking the current rules on set top boxes. But in fact, this initiative is really all about taking a 90’s regime and redefining all of its terms to let the Commission get its hooks into all of the new technology that has developed since then, outside of the Commission’s authority.

I believe the FCC should embrace the future, not the past. For good or bad, times are changing. The app economy is weakening the multichannel video programming distributor video package formula every day, and broadcasters are moving, adjusting and finding innovative and creative ways to reach consumers directly or via over-the-top providers. The entire video industry is moving away from a “box” mentality and toward competition on many new levels. As such, the fundamental need for regulation to maintain a competitive set top box marketplace should be questioned and revisited. The video marketplace seems to be working better than ever before due to disruptive technologies, not disruptive regulation. There’s no need for the FCC to photobomb the picture.

Remarks of Commissioner Pai at 2016 NAB Show Re: Repacking Broadcasters Following Incentive Auction

Later in 2016, we hope that the Federal Communications Commission will be able to celebrate the conclusion of a successful incentive auction. But once the auction closes, the FCC’s work will be far from over. Most importantly, the repack of television broadcast stations will remain ahead of us, and we will need to have a concrete plan in place to get that done.

This panel therefore comes at an opportune time. To date, most of the public discussion of the repack has centered on two critical topics: time and money. Will it be possible to complete the repack in the 39-month period allotted by the FCC? And will the repack cost more than the $1.75 billion provided by Congress? These are important questions, and I’m sure that we’ll touch on them. Whatever the approach, it seems to me that the basic decision we must confront is the same. Do we get our feet wet in places where repacking will be the easiest, in smaller markets with fewer television stations and a less congested UHF band, and then work our way up to the hardest areas? Or do we pull the Band-Aid off quickly and tackle the toughest markets right away?

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