1. Monthly archive
  2. July 2017

July 2017

Stanley: Is Trump an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike?

[Commentary] Is the President an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? Personal experience has taught me that the line between these two things is vanishingly thin. Horrible things have been said about President Trump, true. He could argue that he's simply fighting back, yes. But fighting fire with fire inevitably leads to more fire, and while I'm sympathetic towards some of Trump's agenda, I look upon the state of politics in this era with despair. It is not unreasonable for journalists to say "enough is enough."

[Timothy Stanley is a historian and columnist for Britain's Daily Telegraph.]

What we miss when we obsess over President Trump’s tweets

[Commentary] Remember when we used to obsess about every presidential tweet? When every story was about us? When Donald Trump’s war with the media was, really, the only thing that mattered? We need to stop. Stop reporting on every tweet with the volume of a declaration of war; stop letting the president and his staff frame every misstep and scandal as a media story; stop treating Trump’s war with the press as if it’s the most important thing happening in this country. It’s not. Our response to each of Trump’s media-bashing episodes comes off as if we’re hearing them for the first time. Can you believe he said that? Could this be the thing that finally does him in? Does he have no respect for the First Amendment? The answer, of course, is that he doesn’t respect the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech.

The media’s impulse, which is understandable, is to keep the focus on his threats to the press, and not to let them become normalized. But we have reached the point at which the media response has become counterproductive and even beneficial to the president and his lackeys in the White House, who have turned the West Wing into a megaphone for Trump’s faux media war and reporters in the White House briefing room into photo-op foils. It’s amazing, and absurd, that we turn over live television to the press secretary to air the administration’s latest broadside against the press, and let senior administration officials go off the record to attack our own outlets. Every time President Trump fires a shot in his war against the media, there’s an opportunity for a more serious, nuanced argument about why everyone benefits from a free and vigorous press: Airing a president and his policies to open discussion and scrutiny results in better government.

Amazon and Dish Network: A Match in the Making?

For years Dish Network Chief Executive Charlie Ergen has sought out deals and partnerships with just about every major telecommunications company, from Sprint to T-Mobile to AT&T —so far, to no avail. Now, the satellite-television mogul is turning his attention to the technology world and a new—and somewhat surprising—potential partner has emerged: Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos.

The two men—eccentric billionaires with geek tendencies and shared interest in space and robotics—have gotten to know each other better over the past year and have discussed a partnership to enter the wireless business, apparently. Among the ideas: Amazon could help finance a network Dish is building focused on the “Internet of Things”—the idea that everything from bikes to Amazon’s drones can have web connectivity everywhere. Another idea is that Amazon, as a founding partner of Dish’s new wireless network, could offer an option for Prime members to pay a little more a month for a connectivity or phone plan, one of the people said. No deal is imminent and it is unclear if the companies will move forward with a partnership.

Blackburn Privacy Bill Hits Democratic Wall

Democrats aren't feeling the love for Rep Marsha Blackburn 's (R-TN) privacy bill, the BROWSER Act. "Despite her goal of bipartisan support, [Chairman] Blackburn has so far failed to attract a single Democratic co-sponsor a month and a half after the bill's introduction. And Democrats are pledging to follow through on their plans to make the privacy issue a campaign talking point in the 2018 congressional elections, seeking to punish GOP lawmakers for their 'creepy' and 'indefensible' move to axe the Federal Communications Commission's landmark rules shielding consumer data," they write. "Bottom line is, Republicans made every effort to get rid of the FCC privacy provisions, and at this point, I don't think that their efforts are credible," said House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ).

Added Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): "All I know is that she led the charge on ripping privacy protections away from every single American on the internet. I think that's the reason she introduced another bill. This is CYA [cover your ass]." Chairman Blackburn, for her part, had this retort: "The failure of Democratic leadership to substantively engage on this issue is revealing and belies other motives."

States consider limited internet service providers' access to user data

Soon after President Donald Trump took office with a pledge to cut regulations, Republicans in Congress killed an Obama-era rule restricting how broadband companies may use customer data such as web browsing histories. But the rule may be finding new life in the states. Lawmakers in almost two dozen state capitols are considering ways to bolster consumer privacy protections rolled back with President Trump's signature in April. The proposals being debated from New York to California would limit how AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast use subscribers' data.

The privacy rule is just one example of states resisting policy changes wrought under the Trump administration. 35 states are pressing for the right to enforce laws guaranteeing internet service speeds live up to advertisements. "If the federal government lags, the states have to lead. And that's what we're doing," said Tim Kennedy, a Democratic New York state senator. Kennedy introduced a bill to prohibit internet service providers from selling customer web searches, social media histories and other personal information to third parties -- the crux of the nixed federal regulation.

The Internet's Future Is More Fragile Than Ever, Says One Of Its Inventors

An interview with Vint Cerf, the co-creator of tech that makes the internet work.

Cerf said, "My biggest concern is to equip the online netizen with tools to protect himself or herself, to detect attempts to attack or otherwise harm someone. The term 'digital literacy' is often referred to as if you can use a spreadsheet or a text editor. But I think digital literacy is closer to looking both ways before you cross the street. It’s a warning to think about what you’re seeing, what you’re hearing, what you’re doing, and thinking critically about what to accept and reject...Because in the absence of this kind of critical thinking, it’s easy to see how the phenomena that we’re just now labeling fake news, alternative facts [can come about]. These [problems] are showing up, and they’re reinforced in social media."

The Post-Internet Order Broadband — Lessons from the Pre-Open Internet Order Experience. Net Neutrality Special Issue Blog # 4

To support the 2015 Open Internet Order (OIO), the Federal Communications Commission cited four potential violations of network neutrality over the previous ten years, only two of which it explicitly challenged. Why, then, did the FCC say a rule was desperately needed and Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS) providers say the rule would be devastating given that their past behavior meant that the rule would not affect them much? To mix common sense with econspeak, why did anyone care about the Order if it was not binding? Tim Brennan, professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and former FCC Chief Economist, addresses this question and explores the potential effects of the OIO 2015 rule in “The Post-Internet Order Broadband Sector: Lessons from the Pre-Open Internet Order Experience.” In particular, he explores what lessons policymakers might learn from the handful of cases as they continue to grapple with net neutrality.

This post is the fourth in a series featuring the contents of a recent special issue of the Review of Industrial Organization, organized by the Technology Policy Institute and the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Technology, Innovation, and Competition. The short answer to why the Order matters if it doesn’t matter is that it is likely to affect future business models and network development. The longer answer is more nuanced. In summary, Brennan notes that the current net neutrality debate can be informed by past events, and should include additional issues in the present. He contends that things might not change all that much, under 2015 OIO or future net neutrality rules, but policymakers must consider how BIAS providers will be incentivized to innovate while stuck between edge providers and end users.

Expert says net neutrality debate could have greater impact on WDAZ area

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering reversing so-called "Network Neutrality." "Minneapolis, the elimination of Net Neutrality might be good for them. I think up here in North Dakota it might be detrimental. I don't see any positives for us," Ronald Marsh, Chair of the University of North Dakota's Computer Science Department said. He says repealing Net Neutrality could lead to an even tighter monopoly on the internet in our area. Resulting in lower speeds and higher costs. "To squeeze every penny they can out of the customer. I think that's what the end result will be is not immediately but 5 years, 10 years down the road there will be the haves and the have nots when it comes to the internet," Marsh said.

Right or left? Either way, conventional thinking rules op/ed pages

[Commentary] News organizations are still struggling to diversify their ranks. Minority groups only accounted for about 13 percent of newspaper jobs in 2015, according to one industry survey. Tied into that equation is a socioeconomic component that anyone who works in today’s precarious news industry is well aware of: holding a newspaper job often means coming from an affluent household, especially as both undergraduate and graduate degrees, along with a slew of prestigious internships, become the price of admission for scant openings.

Despite all the upheaval over the past year, the unchanging nature of newspaper op-ed pages doesn’t surprise Jack Shafer, a Politico media columnist. “A newspaper is not a Twitter feed. It’s not skywriting,” Shafer says. The editorial status quo will remain as long as the people who control the pages hail from the same classes and ideological backgrounds they’ve always known. “We can argue whether Bret Stephens or Paul Krugman’s ideas are worthy of placement in The New York Times,” Shafer says. “but [A.J.] Liebling said it best. The freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

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