Don’t you dare call us
Remember how we all did the happy dance when the U.S. government created the Do Not Call Registry back in 2003? How we popped the champagne corks because hefty civil penalties could be given to a telemarketer if they called your landline after you had opted-in on the registry? Sure, there are loopholes and enforcement problems but essentially the registry works, and it restored the natural order of things by liberating us from having to drop everything because some faceless, money-grubbing salesperson rang in our living rooms.
A mere eight years later landlines are a dying technology. Cool kids, lower-income people, and savvy middle-agers know there’s really no need for a “home phone.” We’ve never had to worry about mobile phone spam because there is a FCC rule against it. This restriction was premised largely on the fact that, unlike on a landline, receiving a wireless call can cost something to the recipient. Same is true for faxes, for the same reason: unsolicited faxes — i.e., spam — is a civil violation.
But, aside from the practical rationale, this dynamic reflects the fundamental truth that I have a phone to make calls and receive them from whom I choose. I’m not paying all this money to establish a marketing beachhead in my pocket.
Well, hang on to your smartphones: Telemarketers are trying to recreate in mobile what the DNC Registry and the demise of landlines rendered moot. If we don’t make a huge stink about this right now there is a chance, however slight, that robo telemarketing calls will make a come back, on steroids.
This abomination is being teed up as HR 3035, aka the “Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011.” It would amend the Communications Act of 1934 and give legal cover to the cretins of commerce who think they have the right to get your attention, anywhere you happen to be, by leveraging the reality that mobile phones are everywhere and the primary means of communication for hundreds of millions of people.
The proposed bill is very short, and blessedly easy to understand. But it would “permit informational calls to mobile telephone numbers, and for other purposes” (my emphasis added) by the use of an “automatic telephone dialing system.”
Tech wrap: AT&T, T-Mobile deal less likely than ever
The chances of AT&T’s bid for T-Mobile USA succeeding rapidly diminshed after AT&T said it would take a $4 billion charge in case its takeover fails. The telecommunications group and T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telekom, said they would continue to pursue anti-trust approval for the $39 billion takeover from the Department of Justice, but withdrew for now applications to the industry regulator.
Both the DOJ and the FCC oppose the deal. FCC approval would be meaningless if the DOJ blocked the transaction, and AT&T and Deutsche Telekom said they would return to the FCC process if they secured approval from the DOJ. Analysts said the merger, badly needed by sub-scale T-Mobile USA , looked less likely than ever to succeed.
Microsoft is planning the first beta of its Office 15 software in January, techblog WinRumors writes.
Microsoft will provide a Technology Preview of the software initially, expected at CES 2012 alongside the Windows 8 beta. Office 15 will be designed with touch at the heart of the applications. Microsoft has redesigned the general look and feel of its popular Outlook email client to make it usable by touch, pen and mouse.
Internet service providers cannot be forced to block their users from downloading songs illegally, as such an order would breach EU rules, Europe’s highest court said. The Luxembourg-based EU Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its verdict in a case involving Belgian music royalty collecting society SABAM and Belgian telecom operator Belgacom unit Scarlet. European consumer organization BEUC said the ruling should get authorities and companies thinking about a fairer way to provide easily accessible legal digital content for consumers.
Alibaba.com, China’s largest e-commerce firm, posted an 11.9 percent rise in quarterly net profit, its slowest growth in nearly two years, with the company raising concerns due to a weak trade outlook stemming from debt woes in the U.S. and Europe. The third-quarter results missed analyst forecasts and were attributed to a weak macroeconomic climate that led to a slower pace of customer additions.
On a more positive note, the AT&T plan to acquire T-Mobile has raised awareness for the need to apply more radio spectrum to wireless broadband services — particularly in rural America.
Moreover, perhaps we’ll see the FCC announce support for more unlicensed spectrum (taken from abandoned analog TV channels) in 2012.
David H. Deans
Congress should dismantle net neutrality
By Sam Batkins The views expressed are his own.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama promised, “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose.” Following his election to the Presidency, he threw the democratic process in the backseat when his appointees implemented net neutrality without congressional approval.
Thanks to this regulatory end-around, net neutrality is currently law, but it doesn’t have to be. Courts could strike it down before they review the President’s health care mandate, or Congress could take the first bite, rescinding the regulation under the little-known Congressional Review Act.
Net neutrality has received intense scrutiny for more than five years but the arguments against the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) power grab have hardly changed, and given the current economic climate, the arguments have only gotten stronger. The only thing that has changed is the FCC’s evolving justification for its implementation.
First, the FCC’s new net neutrality rules regulating Internet providers are price controls, plain and simple. Anyone paying more for their debit card or noticing the paucity of free checking these days ought to know the consequences of government rate-setting.
Net neutrality explicitly bans “pay for priority” arrangements between broadband providers and other parties noting that “a commercial arrangement … would raise significant cause for concern.” Price controls alone should be “cause for concern,” not arrangements between private companies competing for subscribers.
Let’s imagine for a second if the general ban on “pay for priority” extended to mass transit; highways for example. Traditional city roads are free and open to all, which has led to mass urban congestion. Northern Virginia traffic planners rejected this one-size-fits-all approach and adopted “HOT Lanes,” raising the social value of the traffic system by creating priorities and a chance for commuters to choose—or not.
Unfortunately I made a couple of typos in my previous response:
- Whittacre’s speech I believe was in 2006, not 1996 (and it is Edward Whittacre Jr, not Neil 
).
- the last line should have read “By allowing ISPs to ignore network neutrality and create “artificial scarcity”, it actually will reduce their incentive to increase network capacity as the opportunity to double, triple and quadruple charge companies for “priority access” will go away”.
I have to respond to Akkeri’s post.
He makes an important point that wireless carriers are much more capacity constrained that wire line carriers.
This fact, however, is completely irrelevant to the Network Neutrality discussion. The rest of his post repeats traditional telecom talking points. Let me respond to them one by one.
Akkeri makes the case that ISPs not be constrained by Network Neutrality so that they can intelligently manage traffic. This is false. If networks are overloaded the correct solution is Usage Based Billing. Wireless carriers are already moving to this model. You are already being charged for a finite amount of bandwidth per month (typically a couple of GB a month). We have already paid for that bandwidth! ISPs cannot be “flooded” by bittorrent or skype if they limit the maximum amount of data which can be consumed per billing period.
Again, internet companies are not “free riders”. Google, Netflix, Facebook and other content providers already pay plenty for their internet access. Investment in the internet will dry up if they have to pay again and again to every last mile ISP with their hand out (“if you don’t pay we will throttle your traffic or break your app and you will lose X customers”).
And it is a complete and utter fallacy that Network Neutrality will lead to higher prices. What Network Neutrality maintains is transparent pricing. When I pay for internet access I know what I am getting and I can make accurate comparisons between ISPs. This goes away with a non-neutral internet. In a non-neutral internet you will only be able to see Hulu if you subscribe to one ISP, but if you want to subscribe to Netflix you will need to subscribe to a different one. You may need to pay money to Google for that Gmail account as every ISP charges google for access. In theory whilst your “top-line” internet cost may be lower (though given the cable TV experience I seriously doubt it) you will pay more through extra add-on charges and less choice.
Unfortunately ISPs can’t accept that just like water, gas and electric, internet is just another utility and needs to be treated as such. No other utility can hold specific users to ransom to extract more revenue. ISPs should be no different.
Tech wrap: ITC joins Apple-Samsung spat
The International Trade Commission agreed to investigate Apple’s complaint that mobile phones and tablets made by rival Samsung violate its technology intellectual property. The intensifying patent dispute threatens to strain a lucrative supply relationship: Apple in 2010 was Samsung’s second-largest customer, accounting for $5.7 billion of sales tied mainly to semiconductors, according to the Asian consumer electronics company’s annual report.
Google faces a total of nine antitrust complaints which EU regulators are now investigating, two sources said. Up to now, The European Commission has only confirmed four cases against Google. The increased number of complaints underscores Google’s dominant position but does not necessarily mean bad news for the company, said Simon Holmes, head of EU and competition law at law firm SJ Berwin.
“Google’s strong position means there are lots of interests involved. But there is nothing wrong per se in having a strong position,” he said.
Broadband speeds on average are within 80 percent of what major Internet service providers advertise, a big improvement from two years ago, according to an FCC study. I suggest that the study, while attempting to arm consumers with a comparison tool in order to make more informed choices, masks regional disparities in broadband speeds that were brought to light last week.
For an extra $25 per year, fans of Electronic Arts sports titles will be able to download video games three days before they hit stores, a move that should boost EA’s digital sales. EA’s new program called “Season Ticket” will let consumers get access to five sports games–its soccer, golf, hockey, pro-football and college football titles. Users will be able to download the games over the Internet on Microsoft’s Xbox and Sony Corp PlayStation systems three days before they are out in stores.
Russia’s interior minister called for limits on the Internet to prevent a slide in traditional cultural values among young people, raising fears of controls over the vibrant Russian-language Web. Rashid Nurgaliyev, who did not indicate which sites he felt should be curbed, said that Russia’s youth needed looking after to prevent young people from being corrupted by “lopsided” ideas, especially in music, that may undermine traditional values.
Privacy regulation and the “free” Internet
Adam Thierer is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The views expressed are his own.
Would you like to pay $20 a month for Facebook, or a dime every time you did a search on Google or Bing? That’s potentially what is at stake if the Obama administration and advocates of stepped-up regulation of online advertising get their way.
The Internet feels like the ultimate free lunch. Once we pay for basic access, a cornucopia of seemingly free services and content is at our fingertips. But those services don’t just fall to Earth like manna from heaven. What powers the “free” Internet are data collection and advertising. In essence, the relationship between consumers and online content and service providers isn’t governed by any formal contract, but rather by an unwritten quid pro quo: tolerate some ads or we’ll be forced to charge you for service. Most consumers gladly take that deal—even if many of them gripe about annoying or intrusive ads, at times.
Nonetheless, calls for regulation persist, especially as advertising grows more sophisticated. More targeted forms of online advertising hold the promise of better ads more closely tailored to consumers’ interests. But that also raises anxieties among some Web surfers who fear their privacy might be undermined by increased data collection or “tracking.”
To address those concerns, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Commerce have stepped-up activity in this arena and has suggested that new rules may be needed. Earlier this month, the FTC released a report endorsing a new regulatory framework, including a so-called “Do Not Track” mechanism to allow easier consumer opt-outs of online data collection and advertising. Last Thursday, the Commerce Department followed suit with a new report calling for expanded oversight and a new Privacy Policy Office within Commerce. Meanwhile, discussion continues in Congress about a new “baseline” privacy law.
The stakes in the debate are significant since regulation could fundamentally alter the nature of online commerce and the future of how digital content and services are provided. Curtailing data collection and online advertising could be killing the goose that lays the Internet’s golden eggs. Such regulation will likely have a particularly deleterious impact on small publishers and service providers, who depend almost entirely upon online advertising. In turn, this could curtail new entry and innovation—and new forms of speech and culture.
Some regulatory advocates don’t hide their desire to move the U.S. in the direction the European Union has charted with its “data directives” and more stringent forms of privacy regulation. But America’s refusal thus far to walk down that more regulatory path offers scholars the chance to evaluate Europe’s more restrictive approach and study whether America’s lead in the global digital marketplace might be tied to its more “hands-off” approach to online regulation. A recent study by Avi Goldfarb and Catherine Tucker found that “after the [European Union’s] Privacy Directive was passed [in 2002], advertising effectiveness decreased on average by around 65 percent in Europe relative to the rest of the world.” They argue that because regulation decreases ad effectiveness, “this may change the number and types of businesses sustained by the advertising-supporting Internet.” Regulation of advertising and data collection for privacy purposes, it seems, can affect the global competitiveness of online firms.
The folks who conjured up the World Wide Web, back when the Internet was still largely a tool for academic research paid for by the Pentagon, with a mind to its becoming a self-supporting entity. The first Web browsers had the capacity to store “cookies” specifically to track “visits” for follow-up sales efforts, and to facilitate secure log-ins and money transactions. Absent that, you surely wouldn’t be reading this.
What’s caused all the trouble is that there are those in the Internet “business” who aren’t willing to play nice. They in turn get helped by greedy ad-placement services who don’t care if they’re showing you a “click-through” banner that plants a Trojan on your computer, so long as they got paid for it. The problem is compounded by the inherent insecurity of the great majority of computers in use (thanks a lot, Microsoft!) and the extreme reluctance of the entities who profit from “the Internet” to spend a dime fixing the essential problems as long as they accrue more profit by offering the public more glitzy whiz-bangs instead.
Fox/Cablevision still talking, FCC also talking. Yet no change on Day 4.
So you know the story well by now: Fox Networks’ Fox 5 and My 9 channels have been off the air for Cablevision’s 3 million odd homes in the New York area since midnight on Saturday morning because both sides have been unable to reach a carriage deal. As a result New York football fans have missed a key Giants game versus Detroit Lions (pictured) and could miss more if this continues. As you might expect, the argument between Fox and Cablevision is over money.
Since then both sides have exchanged barbs and made various claims about who’s to blame — which is standard practice in a programming fee dispute. But FCC Chair Julius Genachowski appears to have had enough according to this statement:
“I am deeply troubled that Cablevision and Fox are spending more time attacking each other through ads and lobbyists than sitting down at the negotiating table. The time for petty gamesmanship is over.
“I have called the CEOs of both companies and reiterated the importance of reaching a deal, as many companies have done before. I reminded the companies that they share responsibility for consumer disruption, and that they shouldn’t punish consumers because of their unwillingness to reach a deal. I also insisted that they negotiate in good faith. We will continue to scrutinize their actions very closely.”
According to Fox, both sides did talk on Tuesday for a short while on the phone but “no material progress was made and we remain far apart.” Fox said they’d continue talking tomorrow.
Cablevision for its part continues to push for binding arbitration i.e. getting an independent third party involved to help both sides meet somewhere in the middle.
Comcast, NBC Universal pledge support for local news
Comcast has finally unveiled its formal announcement that it plans to take control of NBC Universal from General Electric. Public interest groups and various U.S. government types have been tutting and clucking over whether this media mega-deal would be against the national interest, and few doubt that Congress and the administration will want to review this plan in loving detail.
To that extent, Comcast released a memo on Thursday outlining its public commitments. There are a bunch in here, but this old-school journalist wants to point out above all else that the company said it’s committed to preserving and enriching “the output of local news, local public affairs and other public interest programming on NBC O&O (“owned and operated”) stations.”
That’s a mighty strong commitment to make. Let’s hope that it doesn’t do what many radio and TV stations have done for years to satisfy their government-mandated public interest requirements and stick all that stuff on the air at 5 a.m. Sunday morning. Also, how much more money will they provide?
Here, meanwhile, are some of the commitments, straight from the memo. Print them out and tape them to your refrigerator so you can hold Comcast’s feet to the fire later if things don’t work out as planned. I marked parts in bold:
- NBC has a proud history in broadcasting with both NBC and Telemundo. Notwithstanding the turbulence in the current media marketplace and the ongoing threats to the business model of a national broadcast network, the combined company remains committed to continuing to provide free over-the-air television through its 0&0 stations and through local broadcast affiliates across the nation. As we negotiate and renew agreements with our broadcast affiliates, we will continue our cooperative dialogue with our affiliates toward a business model to sustain free over-the-air service that can be workable in the evolving economic and technological environment.
- The NBC owned-and-operated broadcast stations (“0&OS “) have a demonstrated record of quality local programming in major markets around the country. Comcast also has demonstrated its commitment to local programming, including sports and public affairs, and in providing support for public, educational, and government (PEG) access programming. We want to use the combined resources of NBC and Comcast to strengthen localism
- We intend to preserve and enrich the output of local news, local public affairs, and other public interest programming on NBC 0&0 stations.
- Since NBCU was acquired by GE in 1986, the owners have abided by a policy (summarized in a filing with the FCC) of ensuring that the content of NBC’s news and public affairs programming would not be influenced by the non-media interests of General Electric. The combined company will continue these policies with respect to the news programming organizations of all NBCU networks and stations, and will extend these policies to the potential influence of each of the owners. To ensure such independence, the combined companies will continue in effect the position and authority of the NBC News ombudsman to address any issues that may arise.
- Comcast and NBCU have strong track records in children’s programming and children’s issues. The combined company will make an expanded commitment to meeting the viewing needs of children, and the needs of parents to better control their family’s viewing.
- We reaffirm our commitment to provide clear and understandable on-screen TV Ratings information for all covered programming across all networks (broadcast and cable) of the combined company.
- We intend to expand the availability of over-the-air programming to the Hispanic community utilizing a portion of the digital broadcast spectrum of the Telemundo O&O’s (as well as offering it to Telemundo affiliates) to enhance the current programming of Tel em undo and Mun2.
- As a cable operator, Comcast is committed to dealing fairly with all non-affiliated video programmers with whom we do business, and to promoting program diversity. Nearly six out of every seven channels carried by Comcast Cable systems will still be networks unaffiliated with Comcast upon the completion of this transaction.
- We plan to honor all of NBCU’s collective bargaining agreements. We respect NBCU’s existing labor-management relationships and expect them to continue following the closing of this transaction.
FCC: There might be something amiss in media
Newspaper advertising is a joke, local TV stations are struggling to get ads of their own, journalists are losing their jobs and media executives are calling 25 percent revenue declines an improvement. It sounds like something might be amiss in the U.S. media world.
But don’t take our word for it if you’re the Federal Communications Commission, and you’re about to revisit media ownership regulations and see if they need some changing. See this item from Inside Radio:
[FCC] Chairman Julius Genachowski hires internet entrepreneur and journalist Steven Waldman to lead an agency-wide initiative assessing the state of media. Waldman will lead a team to conduct what’s promised to be an “open, fact-finding process” looking at how the economy is impacting media outlets and make recommendations for policy changes.
Waldman is the co-founder and former editor of the religious website Beliefnet.com, which was bought by News Corp. in 2007. … Waldman will join the Office of Strategic Planning and serve as senior advisor to the chairman. Genachowski says, “A strong consensus has developed that we’re at a pivotal moment in the history of the media and communications, because of game-changing new technologies as well as the economic downturn.”
Yes, but let’s make extra-special sure and hire a guy to check out the situation. You never know; everything might be just fine and we’re making a big mistake saying otherwise.
And I think, the e-newspaper e-readers will have to offer wifi or 3G built in. or maybe freeing up some of that spectrum just vacated by tv, will allow news papers to broadcast their news media over the airwaves and have the e-newspaper with an FM receiver to receive news and maybe even a radio station, with flat panel speakers built in. If the Government supports wide spread usage for e-newspapers transmission, then this will encourage news media to switch over to the new technology.
Apple hasn’t rejected Google Voice iPhone app after all
Apple, Google and AT&T all filed their responsesFriday to the FCC’s requestfor more information in the Google Voice app saga. The story line thus far has been trying to determine the reasons behind Apple’s decision to reject the iPhone app. Some blamed AT&T for the thumbs down, believing that the iPhone’s exclusive U.S. carrier feared the app would provide competition for voice services on the smartphone.
But Apple said AT&T played no role in the rejection. In fact, the iPhone maker said the Google Voice app hasn’t even been rejected.
“Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it,” Apple said in its response. “The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail.”
Google, in its filing with the FCC, chose to keep confidential Apple’s explanation for rejecting — or rather, failing to approve — the app.
Apple also provided some interesting tidbits on the App Store, which is now stuffed with more than 65,000 applications just over a year after its launch. Apple said it has more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each app. It said 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted.
It added: “We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.”
I think that Apple’s explanation is reasonable. Google Voice aims to replace the ENTIRE user experience of the iPhone. Because the Google Voice would be used over WiFi networks AND cellular networks, you would literally never have to use Apple’s telephone system. With Skype and like apps, you can only make calls in the application while using WiFi, so when you are out of WiFi area, you still have to rely on Apple’s telephone system.
I still do wish that Apple would accept the Google Voice app, but until that day, I think that their explanation is reasonable.
Vonage CEO sees no reason for iPhone Google Voice rejection
The US telecom regulator FCC has been looking into why Apple rejected an Internet telephony application from Google for inclusion in its iPhone application store. Responses from Google, Apple and AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone carrier, are due today.
Along with Google Voice’s consumer fans, the outcome of the inquiry will be closely watched by other Internet telephone services such as eBay’s Skype. Apple approved a Skype app for iPhone but consumers can only make Skype calls when they are connected to a short-range wi-fi network and not via the AT&T cellular network. The head of another U.S. Internet telephony provider Vonage weighed in on the topic in an interview this week. Vonage plans to offer its own mobile communications application later this year.
Marc Lefar previously served as chief marketing officer of Cingular, now AT&T Mobility, where he helped put together the mobile operator’s iPhone deal with Apple, before becoming Vonage Chief Executive last year. Taking his previous experience in the wireless industry into acccount, Lefar said it was unclear to him why the Google Voice application was rejected for iPhone.
“These apps we’re talking about, to me … seem to be reasonable to allow, relative to the range of things that have already been put into the app store,” he said.
“I think its very hard to defend a unique service and to distinguish some services in the communications space (from) others if all they do is use software to be able to provide that service,” he said.
“We’re very interested to see what the FCC comes back with. We think the inquiry is completely appropriate,” he said. So is Lefar worried Vonage’s app will also face a tough time getting approval? “It’s not a concern,” he said “We understand what the competitive environment is and we think there’s ample opportunity to deliver software applications that deliver some of our services across a range of devices.” “We go into this with our eyes wide open.” said Lefar but declined comment on specific devices.
I don’t understand why Apple is doing this to themselves. Google has said they will simply make a web workaround if Apple blocks the app in stores (cf. http://www.newsy.com/videos/defending_th e_app_store), so why would Apple bother standing in the way?
I attempted to email Representative Lee but his website would not allow me to email him because my zip code is not in his area of representation.