Op-Ed

[Commentary] The mainstream media has suddenly discovered Sinclair. Oh no! cry the media watchdogs -- this company known formally as Sinclair Broadcast Group has a conservative slant to its newscasts. That's a no-no, say the watchdogs, even though many sources of news on TV seem to have a slant these days. But the problem isn't the slant, of course. It's the conservative slant.

Sinclair is in the media watchdogs’ crosshairs because it is the largest single owner of local TV stations in the United States in terms of the number of properties the company owns. Many of the stations have local news. I have seen these “too-powerful” arguments arise time and time again over the course of my 34-year career covering television. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that a company such as Sinclair could own a million stations and the commentaries of Boris Epshteyn would not be any more influential or watched by a bigger audience than any number of other commentators from MSNBC to Fox News Channel.

[Commentary] Many tech execs that I know hate and do not trust our government, but are starting to come to the conclusion that a president, senator and congressmen and congresswomen need to have a greater grasp of how technology will shape our world and country, and be tech-savvy enough to keep America moving forward now. I am told behind the scenes that some very high-powered, forward-thinking tech execs who really understand how technology is going to drive so many major things tied to America’s growth and world position are starting to contemplate running for office in many states around America. Their goal would be to gain a stronger position of influence when it comes to the role government must play in guiding how technology is applied and integrated into all of our business and personal lives fairly and equally.

I have no clue whether Zuckerberg will or will not eventually move into politics, but I am willing to bet that as more and more tech execs understand the magnitude of what has to be called the great tech revolution of this century, we will see some of them trying to find a greater way to influence our current politicians, and we’ll even see some begin to run for office in order to influence our government from within as much as possible.

[Tim Bajarin is the president of Creative Strategies Inc.]

We’ve heard lots about Silicon Valley’s toxic culture this summer — its harassing venture capitalists, its man-child CEOs, its abusive nondisparagement agreements. Those stories have focused on how that culture harms those in the industry — the women and people of color who’ve been patronized, passed over, pushed out and, in this latest case, told they’re biologically less capable of doing the work in the first place. But what happens in Silicon Valley doesn’t stay in Silicon Valley. It comes into our homes and onto our screens, affecting all of us who use technology, not just those who make it. It’s bad enough for apps to showcase sexist or racially tone-deaf jokes or biases. But in many cases, those same biases are also embedded somewhere much more sinister — in the powerful (yet invisible) algorithms behind much of today’s software.

[Commentary] How much is being lost in economic benefits because fixed broadband connectivity is not ubiquitous? A 2017 study by Ohio State University Swank Program on Rural-Urban Policy estimated the economic benefits of providing broadband access to unserved households in Ohio. To calculate these estimates, the Ohio State study used customer surplus – what a consumer is willing to pay for a service compared to what they are actually paying. In other words, consumer surplus is the average amount of value a consumer receives from Internet service above and beyond the price.

The most conservative of scenarios, which assumes full access but only 20 percent adoption, would generate an impact of $4.5 billion per year or $43.8 billion over fifteen years in the US. In non-metropolitan counties, this same scenario would yield $2.3 billion annually or $22.7 billion over fifteen years.

[Dr. Roberto Gallardo is Assistant Director & Community & Regional Economics Specialist of the Purdue Center for Regional Development at Purdue University.
Dr. Mark Rembert is the Graduate Research Associate at the Swank Program on Rural-Urban Policy at the Ohio State University.]

[Commentary] The network neutrality issue has reignited a debate that is as old as the Internet. Once limited to tech-savvy users with access to networked computers at academic institutions, laboratories and government agencies, the Internet has become a fundamental part of nearly everybody’s life. Billions of new users have come online over the past two decades. But the commercial interests that have enabled their entry have also threatened the core values of openness, freedom of expression and access that were so critical to the Internet’s early pioneers.

During the 1990s, public policies dramatically transformed the Internet by encouraging its privatization. As is true today, these changes sparked activism as individuals grappled with the tension between the technology’s commercial potential and its democratic ideals. The net neutrality debate is not just a reiteration of the same debate, however. It has forced Internet companies and users to confront the consequences — both positive and negative — that two decades of privatization have wrought on our digital public sphere. Commercialization has brought the digital world to the masses. But as a result, a handful of companies wield great influence over what we see online, and we are bombarded by spam, ads, and other costs of a profit-driven space.

[Carly Goodman is a historian of immigration and American foreign relations. She is a Mellon/ACLS Public Fellow and communications analyst at the American Friends Service Committee.]

[Commentary] It is not exactly a secret that Dish Network has all but given up on its DBS service, choosing instead to concentrate on Sling TV while trying to squeeze out every last penny of profit from the satellite TV business. But the company’s income was way down in the second quarter, even taking into account the $280 million fine in the telemarketing case the company booked in the quarter. And all other key financial indicators declined in the quarter, except for slightly better churn.

[Bob Scherman is the editor and publisher of Satellite Business News]

[Commentary] In a new project, we have been working to track and understand incivility by examining the extent to which users post offensive comments on Reddit. Reddit has received a great deal of attention from political analysts in recent years due to the fact that it has a robust offering of political discussion boards. In fact, Reddit has become an important enough player in online political discussions that President Obama and a host of 2016 presidential candidates took to the forum to engage with its users. Findings:
Posts became more offensive during the general election campaign
Offensive posts are more popular

What’s most telling is that our research shows that the tone of discussions on Reddit seems to respond to how our politicians are behaving.

[Rishab Nithyanand is a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Information and Computer Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Brian Schaffner is a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts. Phillipa Gill is an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.]

[Commentary] The Washington Post made waves on Aug 3 when it published the full transcripts of President Donald Trump’s erratic phone calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia that occurred just after he was inaugurated. Despite their clear news value, some journalists and pundits questioned whether the leaked transcripts should be published.

Far from being criticized for publishing these leaked transcripts, The Washington Post should be commended. The Trump Administration has spent the last few months trying to cut off all avenues of transparency to the White House, refusing to release visitor logs, keeping Trump’s schedule opaque, limiting the information in readouts of calls to foreign leaders, refusing to hold a presidential press conference since February, and even demanding journalists do not record the administration’s daily press briefings. The Trump Administration may complain all day about leaks, but leaks are increasingly the only way the American public can learn what the administration is really doing. And the news value of these transcripts could not be more obvious: They showed Trump did not know basic facts, that he asked a foreign leader to lie to the press for him, that he knew from the start that his signature campaign promise to “make Mexico pay for the wall” was bogus, and that he has no sense for how allies should cooperate with each other.

[Trevor Timm is the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation.]

[Commentary] Broadband infrastructure can help plug some of the leaks in rural healthcare services. The result can be better healthcare access and an improved local economy. Arrowhead Electric Cooperative built a fiber network in Cook County (MN) a few years ago. “Our main healthcare facilities send patients home with medic alert-type devices and even tablets to monitor recovery and ensure communication thanks to fiber to home,” says Yusef Orest, head of membership services for the co-op. “Before the network, individuals had internet access but it wasn’t fast. Now, hospitals are increasing services at patients’ home and on-site. For example, they can perform ultrasounds and radiology scans and send results instantly to bigger hospitals for analysis.”

Rural communities can learn from small towns – some in metropolitan areas and some in less populated regions – that have made it their missions to use broadband to transform the nature of healthcare and telemedicine.

[Craig Settles is a broadband industry analyst and consultant to local governments.]

[Commentary] As wireless broadband carriers transition what was once referred to as “dumb pipes” to a richer content delivery system, the subject of net neutrality is becoming about as hot as the surface of the sun.

OTT or Over-the-Top content delivery will only continue to skyrocket through the carriers. Subscribers want their television, movies and music all on-the-go, and the continued marketing of unlimited data plans will continue that momentum. Instead of making thinly-veiled excuses or outright violation of net neutrality rules, the carriers will need to ensure network optimization for video consumption. 5G will help with lower latency and dramatically improved throughput but we are still 18 to 24 months away from a ubiquitous deployment. If the tier one global carriers don’t address it now, they will certainly suffer from subscriber loss, lower revenue and dwindling margins.

[Will Townsend is a Moor Insights & Strategy senior analyst covering wireless telecommunications and enterprise networking]