Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Emergency Broadcast System: Is this a test?

This Is a Test. This Is Only a Test.

This post previously appeared in OtherWords.

In the early morning hours of April 19, some residents of Watertown, Mass., received an automated phone call telling them to “shelter in place” while the suspected Boston marathon bomber roamed the neighborhood.

The system worked — to a degree. One homeowner ultimately realized a bleeding man, who turned out to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had holed up in the boat on his property. The Watertown man alerted the authorities, and the suspect went into custody.

But why didn’t everyone in Watertown get the call? Because our emergency communications system is flawed.

The federal government began building official emergency notification systems in the 1950s. The most recognizable of these notifications is the Emergency Broadcast System, with its familiar bands of color spanning the television screen and the recognizable drone of repeated beeps on the radio announcing: “This is a test. This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.”

We can no longer rely on TV and radio as the primary means of mass emergency communication. In Boston, danger arose at night while people were sleeping, their radios and TVs turned off. And in the information age, a growing number of people don’t access TV through traditional cable news or local broadcasting stations. Many of us get the news through other media.

The next logical step would be to meet people where they are. That means using our nation’s telecommunications infrastructure as a platform for emergency alerts. Nearly every American has a landline phone or a mobile wireless device, such as a smartphone. These gizmos are becoming the preferred medium for how we connect with each other and the world at large.

We already have the technology to deliver mass phone calls to large populations. Some reverse-911 systems are quite sophisticated, and can send calls to all landlines in very specific locations. But Americans are migrating away from landlines in favor of wireless. If you don’t have a landline, you’re out of range — and possibly out of luck.

Furthermore, many reverse-911 systems don’t work via Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. VoIP routes call traffic over Internet Protocol networks rather than traditional telephone networks.

These technological limitations are a huge concern, since the most recent data indicate that less than half of American households have a traditional landline phone. One in three relies on wireless phones, while another quarter has VoIP landlines.

When promoting these reverse-911 systems, providers tout subscribers’ ability to self-register their phone numbers. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, the opt-in model is confusing for consumers.

And to complicate matters, some of our country’s most powerful communications companies are pushing to completely eliminate state and federal oversight of their services.

If policymakers go along with this grand plan, fewer people will have access to critical services like reverse 911, and no regulatory agency will have the authority to do anything about it.

So what’s the best way to reach people during an emergency?

Our leaders must encourage innovation and get the government to adapt to new and emerging technologies.

There are laws on the books about wireless emergency communications. The Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act established Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs), which are text-like warning messages that are 90 characters long and are sent in intervals.

But the only devices that are technologically equipped to receive these messages are high-priced smartphones. Those who can’t afford them won’t be able to receive emergency notifications.

And commercial wireless service providers aren’t even required to distribute Wireless Emergency Alerts: Participation in the program is completely voluntary. Low-income and senior populations tend to subscribe to phone plans from smaller wireless carriers that are less likely to offer WEAs.

This all adds up to a communications industry that relies on the public airwaves but isn’t required to alert the public in times of crisis.

As people cut their landlines and transition away from traditional TV and radio, we need effective emergency notification systems that will work on all mobile devices. The FCC should speed up the transition to mobile notification systems and pressure the industry to ensure that these systems work on all cellphones and landlines.




 

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Comcast and Verizon's Phony Free-Speech Claim

Comcast and Verizon’s Phony Free-Speech Claim

May 29th 2013 5:00 PM

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote this week that the First Amendment shields Comcast Corp. from Congress’s authority to ensure the free flow of information across the basic network connections it provides.

Kavanaugh’s assertion accompanied a ruling by the three-judge panel that reversed a Federal Communications Commission action against Comcast. Although the other two judges on the court did not endorse Kavanaugh’s First Amendment argument, it will come up again later this year -- in a case brought against the FCC by Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)

The court should resist this reasoning, or risk trivializing the freedom of speech that the First Amendment truly protects.

This week’s case, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)v. FCC, concerned the 1992 Cable Act, enacted at a time when policy makers rightly worried that cable operators would favor the channels that they increasingly controlled. The statute directed the FCC to prevent cable companies from discriminating among programming providers if the effect of such discrimination is to “unreasonably restrain the ability of an unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly.”

Comcast is both the largest high-speedInternet-access provider and the biggest American video distributor, and faces little competition within its territories for the wires it installs in American homes. At the same time, it owns a controlling interest in Golf Channel and NBC Sports Network, which Comcast distributes as part of its most popular “Expanded Basic” and “Digital Starter” bundles. Meanwhile, the company relegates Tennis Channel, a competitor, to its far-less-popular “Sports Tier,” which focuses on sports programming and requires subscribers to pay additional fees.

Other cable distributors mimic Comcast’s treatment of Tennis Channel, which claims that this prevents it from reaching the 40 million-subscriber threshold required to attract national advertising. The FCC agreed last year that Comcast’s activities amounted to unlawful discrimination.

Free Speech

In its appeal of the FCC’s ruling, Comcast wrapped itself in the mantle of the First Amendment, claiming that it is a speaker akin to the New York Times. The FCC’s order that Comcast carry specific content to a specific audience amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion, the company said. In his concurring opinion this week, Judge Kavanaugh was strongly sympathetic to this claim, saying “the FCC cannot tell Comcast how to exercise its editorial discretion about what networks to carry any more than the Government can tell Amazon or Politics and Prose or Barnes & Noble what books to sell; or tell the Wall Street Journal or Politico or the Drudge Report what columns to carry.”

Congress, though, has long distinguished basic information transmission facilities from newspapers; there is a sharp difference between a facility that allows someone else’s speech to be transmitted, and expression itself. Indeed, all of American communications policy is based on this premise.

In enacting the 1992 Cable Act, Congress was concerned that the operator of the single wire into a home would have the power and incentive to pick and choose among sources of speech and thereby constrain Americans’ access to information. No one watching a particular channel would think that Comcast, by virtue of transmitting it, was “speaking.” And even if Comcast is, in some blunt way, “speaking” through its choice of channels, the rules against discrimination aren’t meant to further the “message” of Tennis Channel. The government just wants fair competition.

In a separate case before the same court, Verizon is making a similar claim. According to the company, an FCC rule that keeps an Internet-access network provider from blocking its customers’ access to any content violates its First Amendment right to control the speech it transmits. The rule amounts to compelled speech, and is thus as unconstitutional as a law ordering a newspaper what to publish. Verizon claims the right to edit the Internet with absolute discretion.

Closed Market

Hundreds of millions of Americans entrust giant, private digital-network providers with their First Amendment-protected speech. These providers -- principally Comcast and Time Warner Cable Inc. over wires, and Verizon and AT&T Inc. (T) in wireless -- have acted in parallel to exclude competition in their individual geographic and product marketplaces. At this point, it would be extraordinarily difficult for any new entrant to achieve the scale it would take to cut into the incumbents’ profits.

As a result, the country that invented the Internet is lagging behind other nations; only people in MexicoIsraelChileNew Zealandand Greece pay more than Americans for each megabit per second of Internet access, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Now, the same companies are claiming First Amendment immunity from any congressional oversight. Other enormous industries have seen the appeal of this argument: Last year, the pharmaceutical industry successfully argued that the First Amendment shielded it from prosecution for promoting off-label use of a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

For the Internet-access providers, this implausible argument must not stand: If business decisions were constitutionally protected speech, every government regulation would be presumptively unconstitutional. Surely the First Amendment wasn’t intended to be used as a shield to protect power in the marketplace.

(Susan Crawford, a contributor to Bloomberg View and a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, is the author of “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.” The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Susan P. Crawford at scrawford@scrawford.net or@scrawford on Twitter

Comcast Defeats FCC Order

Comcast Defeats FCC Order on Distributing Tennis Channel

by Tom Schoenberg, mobile.bloomberg.com
May 28th 2013 12:02 PM

Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)’s decision to carry the Tennis Channel as premium programming was a business judgment that didn’t discriminate against programming owned by others, a U.S. appeals court ruled, overturning a regulator’s order to include the channel in lower-cost packages.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today unanimously rejected a Federal Communications Commission mandate to make the Tennis Channel more widely available on its cable systems, a demand the largest U.S. cable company said would force it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more for the programming.

“Without showing any benefit for Comcast from incurring the additional fees for assigning Tennis a more advantageous tier, the commission has not provided evidence that Comcast discriminated against Tennis on the basis of affiliation,” Circuit JudgeStephen Williams wrote.

Comcast sued the FCC after the regulator last year required it to distribute the Tennis Channel to the same number of subscribers who receive two sports networks owned by the cable company, the Golf Channel and the NBC Sports Network. The FCC also assessed a $375,000 penalty against Philadelphia-based Comcast.

Investors in the closely held Tennis Channel include Apollo Partners, Bain Capital Ventures, Battery Ventures, CCMP Capital Advisors, Columbia Capital, DND Capital Partners LLC and ex-players Andre Agassiand Pete Sampras, according to the channel’s website.

Comcast Comment

“Tennis Channel received exactly the carriage it bargained for and agreed to,”Sena Fitzmaurice, a spokeswoman for Comcast, said in an e-mailed statement. She said the company was pleased with the court’s decision.

Neil Grace, an FCC spokesman, declined to comment on the decision.

The Tennis Channel, which intervened in the case, said it would seek additional review of the appeals court’s decision, according to Eric Abner, a spokesman for the channel.

“We believe that it is the obligation of the FCC to act in the public interest to ensure a diverse marketplace of voices, as mandated by Congress when it introduced the Cable Act,” Abner said in an e-mailed statement.

Bloomberg LP, the parent company ofBloomberg News, filed a brief in the case backing the FCC and the Tennis Channel.

The case is Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Federal Communications Commission, 12-01337, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Schoenberg in Washington attschoenberg@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha atmhytha@bloomberg.net