October 2016

How the AT&T/Time Warner Deal Could Hurt Low-Income Families

[Commentary] AT&T executives think their plan to take over Time Warner is too big to fail. But the proposed merger’s astronomical cost may prove them wrong. For the deal to go through, AT&T and Time Warner need the approval of government regulators, especially those at the Department of Justice, who will vet it to see if it violates antitrust laws. But there’s another metric by which regulators should evaluate the merger: its impact on real people, especially low-income households and communities of color.

AT&T will need to regularly pay interest to service its massive debt. The telecommunications giant doesn’t print cash; it bills customers. In other words, to pay down its interest, AT&T will have to hike prices. Higher prices would put Internet access further out of reach of the more than 30 million adults in this country stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide. According to US Census data, this gap is most pronounced in African-American and Hispanic communities. People already suffering from generations of systemic racism are disadvantaged further by lack of access to the educational and work opportunities that are at the fingertips of those with high-speed connections. For the enormous amount of money AT&T is shelling out to acquire Time Warner, it could run super-fast gigabit-fiber Internet services to every single home in America. There’s no doubt that this mega-merger doesn’t benefit ordinary Americans. People want reliable, cheap and fast connections to the open Internet. We also need a choice of providers, not a few bloated companies controlling access to both the Internet and the content that flows across it. The merger of AT&T and Time Warner is just too big and costly to accomplish that. For that reason, it must be blocked.

[Tim Karr is the senior director of strategy for Free Press]

Open Up! Open Use Policies for Information Can Power Open Movements

In the Digital Age, governance, technology, education, science, platforms, and more are being pushed to become more “open.” Open movements are working to remove barriers that prevent the public from fully accessing these institutions, systems, and fields. In the United States, open government strives to improve transparency, increase collaboration, and facilitate public participation in our democracy. Underlying this movement is one critical need: open use of information. The public must be able to fully engage with the information fueling each of these endeavors. Much of this information is funded by the federal government, which collects, produces, and distributes more information than any other organization, public or private, in the United States. Unfortunately, restricted access to this information—information produced with public funds—is all too common. Why? In part, this is because institutions have failed to recognize that openness is about more than simply being able to view or see information online. Open use requires that information is not only free, but also that it is available for the public to download, copy, keep, analyze, or reuse for any purpose. Movement toward open use policies has come in fits and starts, and faulty federal policies that treat different kinds of information differently have impeded progress. Many policies continue to delay the publication of information; grant use of information to a select few; or even, and most antithetically to an open movement, limit access to those who can pay.

In The Case for Open Use Policies: Realizing the Full Value of Publicly Funded Information, a new report from New America’s Education Policy program, I argue that these ambiguities in public rights to different kinds of information must be addressed. The report details policy recommendations that would move the federal government toward stronger open use policies.

Groups Urge President Obama to Protect Our Privacy by Taking a Stand for Strong Encryption

Oct 27 marks the one-year anniversary of the “We the People” petition calling on the Obama Administration to publicly affirm its support for strong encryption. The petition platform, which is run by the White House itself, promises a substantive response within 60 days if petitioners can garner 100,000 signatures within 30 days. This is no easy lift, but with the support of nearly 50 organizations, the petition reached its goal last October.

Disappointingly, the White House has stayed silent and failed to hold up its end of the deal. Today Free Press joined a broad coalition of organizations calling on the administration to fulfill its promise, and explaining that while the president has remained silent over the past 365 days, misguided and dangerous efforts to undermine encryption have escalated.

Trump’s plan for a comeback includes building a ‘psychographic’ profile of every voter

In a Fifth Avenue office near Trump Tower, a company being paid millions of dollars by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign says it has developed a political weapon powerful enough to help the Republican nominee overcome his troubles and win the White House. The key is a psychological model for identifying voters that can “determine the personality of every single adult in the United States of America,” said Alexander Nix, chief executive of Cambridge Analytica. The little-known company, which has operated in the United States for four years, opened its office here only a month ago and is clearly at the center of Trump’s quest for a last-minute comeback against Democrat Hillary Clinton. New federal filings show the campaign’s payments to the firm ballooning from $250,000 in August to $5 million in September.

The reliance on Cambridge reflects a recognition by Trump’s campaign that drastic measures are required to erase a potentially irreversible disparity between Trump’s get-out-the-vote operation and Clinton’s meticulously built machinery. The firm says it can predict how most people will vote by using up to 5,000 pieces of data about every American adult, combined with the result of hundreds of thousands of personality and behavioral surveys, to identify millions of voters who are most open to being persuaded to support Trump.

Clinton camp blindsided by e-mail story

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign-in-waiting appeared unprepared for a New York Times story in 2015 that exposed her exclusive use of private e-mail account and server for government business, according to a newly released e-mail. The day the Times story was published, John Podesta, who would later be named campaign chairman, asked future campaign manager Robby Mook if he had seen it coming. “Did you have any idea of the depth of this story?” Podesta asked Mook in an e-mail late on the evening of March 2, 2015, roughly a month before Clinton launched her bid for the White House. “Nope,” Mook responded after 1 am that night. “We brought up the existence of emails in reserach (sic) this summer but were told that everything was taken care of.”

The discussion, which was released by WikiLeaks from a batch of messages apparently stolen from Podesta’s account, sheds additional light on the campaign’s lack of preparation for questions about Clinton’s bespoke setup. The private e-mail arrangement has become a cloud over the Democratic presidential nominee and spurred a yearlong FBI investigation. The e-mail released Oct 27 is one of several published by WikiLeaks detailing the Clinton campaign’s scurrying response to revelations about her e-mail server.

Senate Democratic super PAC sets fundraising record

The Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC linked to Senate Democratic leaders, reported that it raised $19.3 million through the first 20 days of October, setting a record. It’s the most the political action committee, run by former advisers to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his deputy, Sen Charles Schumer (D-NY), has ever reported raising.

“Record-setting support has us well-positioned for this final stretch of the cycle. In less than two weeks Democrats are going to take back the Senate,” said Shripal Shah, a spokesman for the group. Senate Democrats expect to pick up five to seven seats on Election Day and are focusing their spending in battlegrounds such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Indiana and Missouri. They need a net pickup of four seats to win Senate control if Hillary Clinton is elected president. Without her in the Oval Office, they need five. The fundraising report shows Democrats are catching up with outside Republican-allied groups. The Senate Leadership Fund, a group linked to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), announced that it plans to spend $25 million on half a dozen Senate races in the final days of the campaign.