Ownership

The Federal Communications Commission proposed a $13,376,200 fine against Sinclair Broadcast Group for apparently failing to make required disclosures in connection with programming sponsored by a third party. The programming was broadcast more than 1,700 times, either as stories resembling independently generated news coverage that aired during the local news, or as longer-form stories aired as 30- minute television programs. This is the largest fine that the Commission has ever proposed for a violation of its sponsorship identification rules.

The most recent chapter in the debate over net neutrality has been, like previous chapters, cacophonous. One notable difference this time around, though, was the relative quiet of many large tech companies. In previous years, these firms had been outspoken about the issue. What changed? Netflix’s net-neutrality journey is an illuminating example. The reality is that Netflix and other large tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, have grown so dominant that net neutrality has become a nonissue for them.

Every year, Facebook gets tens of thousands of requests for data from governments worldwide, including search warrants, subpoenas, or calls to restrict certain kinds of content. According to a new report released by the company on Dec. 18, these requests are increasing. In the US, the requests rose by 26% from the last six months of 2016 to the first six months of 2017, while globally, requests increased by about 21%.

The need for competition and for affordable access to broadband remains. Rather than fight over net neutrality, the large internet companies and telecoms should take a cue from what happened to big financial institutions after the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Seen as the culprits for millions losing homes and retirements savings, banks were subject to draconian regulations, civil suits and hefty fines. If the public perceives that those companies are reaping disproportionate rewards at the public’s expense, it will act swiftly and punitively.

With the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of network neutrality rules set to go into effect in 2018, attention is turning to the pledges internet service providers have made to consumers about how they'll handle web traffic. Many are taking a fairly hard line against blocking or slowing down the delivery of content. It gets more complicated when it comes to whether internet companies will allow a website, such as Netflix, to pay for a "fast lane" to prioritize its content over sites' content. Comcast says it won't block access to content or slow down its delivery.

Proponents of major media mergers say that consumers will benefit if regulators approve the deals. But consumers, especially those who can least afford it, could get screwed by these deals.Multi-billion-dollar deals — along with regulatory changes such as the repeal of net neutrality rules — are often justified as ways to spur innovation and increase consumer choice, but consumer advocates argue the actions could actually make access to some popular content more expensive. The real question: Is choice at the expense of price really giving consumers what they want?

As far as media markets go, you’d be hard-pressed to find one with a greater need for fair and sober reporting than Flint (MI). The city’s march into the 21st century has been set to a drumbeat of setbacks and injustices: the decline of its manufacturing sector, a dysfunctional city government, the poisoning of its water and the subsequent cover-ups by public officials.

Governments should promote news literacy and strong professional journalism in their societies. The news industry must provide high-quality journalism in order to build public trust and correct fake news and disinformation without legitimizing them. Technology companies should invest in tools that identify fake news, reduce financial incentives for those who profit from disinformation, and improve online accountability. Educational institutions should make informing people about news literacy a high priority.

When the Federal Communications Commission ruled to scrap Obama-era rules meant to prevent anti-competitive behavior by Internet service providers, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the action would simply return the Internet to 2014. But the reality is you can't truly turn back the clock on the Internet. Here's a look back at what led to the rules in the first place and what their repeal and replacement means for consumers now.

[Commentary] In essence, the Federal Communications Commission has given Internet service providers the legal power to blackmail any content provider that does not pay them with the threat of a slowdown in service delivery. The FCC clearly has put the ISPs profits above the benefits of consumers and of the overwhelming majority of businesses.