Editorial

[Commentary] The situation is sickeningly familiar to anyone who works on — or reads — a metropolitan daily newspaper, whether it’s in New Orleans, Detroit or just about any other American city. The paper is hurting financially. It cuts reporters, photographers and editors to make ends meet. Then it cuts even deeper. The journalism suffers, but the paper’s work is still vital to its community. And a question looms: Will it even survive the next decade?

Digital advertising, once thought to be a savior, hasn’t materialized sufficiently. The base of possible subscribers is limited. And vastly increased chain ownership by out-of-town investors, who too often squeeze the paper to improve profits, has wreaked havoc. To say that local journalism should be saved is an understatement. It simply must be saved, and the time is now.

[Commentary] So far in 2016, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, of which Radio Television Digital News Association's (RTDNA) Voice of the First Amendment Task Force is a founding partner, at least 23 journalists have been arrested merely for trying to do their jobs. More troubling, criminal charges are still pending for more than half of those journalists; at least 12, to be precise. In the other 11 cases documented by the tracker, police either released journalists once they realized they were, in fact, journalists, or prosecutors filed but later dropped criminal charges. Particularly disturbing is the fact that two of the 12 reporters still facing criminal charges are accused of felonies and, if convicted, could each spend decades in prison.

[Commentary] The California Legislature wants to give telecom companies a nice big gift: at least $30 million a year, and perhaps billions of dollars in savings at the direct expense of cities that both rely on the money and use their current leverage to negotiate improved coverage for poor neighborhoods. Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) — or, perhaps more to the point, former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown — has to stop it.

He should veto SB 649, which gives telecoms carte blanche to put their “small cell” antennas on any public property — street lights, public buildings — with a token fee, instead of negotiating with cities for the use of taxpayer-owned facilities.

It’s an outrageous giveaway to companies whose profits are in the tens of billions. And it’s a slap in the face to California residents and taxpayers, who shouldn’t be forced to allow access to public property without just compensation. It will raise serious liability issues, but lawmakers left that up to cities to resolve, even though they took away cities’ bargaining power.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission has finally gotten around to asking Sinclair how it intends to comply with the national and local ownership rules. The merger puts it in nominal violation of the caps and it will have to do something to get below them. I applaud the FCC move as the public has the right to know just how Sinclair plans to proceed.

[Commentary] I authored a number of empirical studies examining the effect of network neutrality regulation on investment, employment, and broadband speeds. A few parties offered comments and criticisms on my research including the Open Technology Institute at New America, AARP, and Netflix. Of these, the criticisms levied against my work are either uncompelling or wrong. While I found no valid or meaningful criticisms of my work, one attempt to discredit it was so incoherent and inaccurate that I feel it is worth commenting on more fully to avoid confusion. It is clear from its comments that Free Press has zero comprehension of my empirical analysis.

[Commentary] The blinding rise of Donald Trump over the past year has masked another major trend in American politics: the palpable, and perhaps permanent, turn against the tech industry.

The new corporate leviathans that used to be seen as bright new avatars of American innovation are increasingly portrayed as sinister new centers of unaccountable power, a transformation likely to have major consequences for the industry and for American politics. People who think the money tech spends can buy protection from the political system misunderstand their dynamic: The transfers of money referred to blandly as “campaign finance” are equal parts bribery and extortion, and the system works best when the target is scared. And the political class can smell blood. That Zuckerberg campaign was, to the political world, blood in the water, a signal of a new vulnerability around his company and his industry. That’s a tough place to start before the committee.

[Commentary] Some political TV advertising can be misleading, especially those super PAC (political action committee) commercials. You’re not sure where they come from or who is behind it. But what Facebook found out is worse: A Russian-backed "troll farm" bought $100,000 worth of advertising space on Facebook through fake accounts, according to the company. The shadowy entity had a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda. The new state of media carries specific problems, such as how you can buy advertising. In particular, reports suggest the Russian “troll farm” was using Facebook’s automated, self-service ad-buying tool. All that means way less oversight. And in some cases, social media wants to take a big hands-off approach.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is planning to make some major overhauls at the FCC. Eight months into his term, Pai is preparing to “modernize [the FCC’s] rules to match the realities of today’s marketplace.” At 2017’s National Broadcast Association’s Radio Show, Pai announced he would present to his fellow FCC Commissioners at least one Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) every month, starting in September. These monthly NPRMs are intended to address concerns that Chairman Pai has assessed are part of those "outdated or unnecessary media regulations that should be eliminated or modified.”

Pai’s statements at NAB focused on broadcasting, while his statements via a blog post go into more detail on what’s ahead outside of the broadcast industry. With the tentative agenda for the Commission’s upcoming September meeting posted, it’s shaping up to be a busy time at the FCC for the foreseeable future

On August 8, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission launched a new assessment of “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,” (otherwise known as the “706 Report”). This report is long overdue, as the report is supposed to be issued annually, but the last 706 Report was released on January 29, 2016. The Notice of Inquiry (NOI) properly seeks comment on both fixed and mobile broadband connections. It acknowledges that the two technologies have different technical characteristics and limitations, and that broadband providers choose to market their fixed and mobile products in different ways. As Commissioner Clyburn notes in her concurring statement, fixed and mobile services are complements, not substitutes.

While some press accounts suggested that the FCC reached a tentative conclusion to equate the two technologies, it only sought comment on this question. The FCC also sought comment on how the markets for fixed and mobile services differ, and it did not say that mobile broadband access is a replacement for fixed broadband. To be clear, the SHLB Coalition does not believe fixed and mobile services are substitutes. Students cannot complete homework and seniors cannot apply for government services with just smartphones. While smartphones can help bridge the digital divide for individuals, they do not replace the gigabit speeds provided by fiber or fixed wireless technologies that anchor institutions need.

[Commentary] Neither Google, nor Eric Schmidt, told New America to fire Barry Lynn or his colleagues. They did not have to. Academics fill an intellectual gap that regulators often don’t have time to fill themselves. They supply the knowledge that politicians either don’t possess, or have no time to ponder. Whether it’s because the whole system is increasingly marketised and reliant on corporate funding, or just that big corporates have switched on to this as a way to pursue their agenda, the pressure on experts to alter their testimony to serve the interests of business is only going to increase.

Silicon Valley is subtler, too. If you control the research that happens, you change the entire tack of the conversation. Furthermore, you change the perception of reality itself. If the academics arguing that modern platform monopolies cause damage to the competitive landscape are drowned out by hundreds more funded by technology firms arguing that everything is fine, they look like a lunatic fringe no matter how strong their arguments.