Tag Archives: FCC

Will Google Buy Its Way Out Of Trouble For A Mere $7 million?

Google

Reports were circulating in the tech press Friday that serial privacy violator Google is about to cut a deal with state attorneys general to close their investigation of the Wi-Spy scandal.

Remember what happened?  Google sent specially equipped cars to travel the highways and byways of the world snapping photos of everything they passed.  What Google did not say was that were also sniffing out Wi-Fi networks and sucking up private data on those networks.

They got passwords, account numbers and email messages, including in France a couple trying to arrange an extramarital affair.

When first confronted, Google executives denied sucking up the data.  Then they said it was all a mistake.  Then they said it was the work of a rouge engineer. Consumer Watchdog was among those to call on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. The FTC did, but dropped the probe after Google essentially said, we’ll be nice.

John Simpson The Federal Communication Commission opened a probe ultimately fining Google $25,000 for hindering its investigation.  The FCC also found that the Wi-Fi snooping had been deliberate and that senior managers had been aware of it.  The FCC said it could not determine if the law had been broken because the engineer who designed the Wi-Fi snooping exercised is Fifth Amendment rights and declined to testify.

Google tried to spin the FCC probe by saying the commission found they had not broken the law. That’s not what happened; the FCC said they could not determine if the law had broken. A big difference.

Meanwhile, under the leadership of then Connecticut Attorney Richard Blumenthal, more than 30 state attorneys general launched their investigation of the incident, which is really the largest case of wire tapping in history.

It’s that state attorneys general probe that is reportedly about to be settled for $7 million.  That may sound like a lot, but it’s not even pocket change to the Internet giant, which made $10.7 billion profit on revenues of $50.2 billion in 2012. Divide the fine among the states and it comes out to about $230,000 for each.

I asked Susan Kinsman, spokesperson for Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, now heading the investigation, about prospects for a deal.  She said, “I spoke to our attorneys for a status report. As we’ve stated before, the Google investigation is active and ongoing. I can’t comment about any prospect for a settlement.”

Nonetheless, there are enough sourced reports out there, focusing on the $7 million deal that it sounds like it’s accurate.  It was probably leaked on Friday by Google itself. That’s the way they usually play the PR game. By the time the settlement is officially announced it will be old news.

What’s important, by the way, is not the measly $7 million fine.  It’s understanding what’s really happening. Once again it looks like Google, the serial privacy violator, is buying it’s way out of a jam with what for the Internet giant is pocket change.

We’ll need to see what other provisions the settlement contains.  Will the state attorneys general give Google the same sort of pass that the FTC did when it allowed Google to explicitly deny it broke the law in the Safari hacking scandal and charged Google $22.5 million? What will happen to the data Google sucked up? Will there being any meaningful injunctive relief?  Given Google’s record of repeated privacy violations and of bamboozling regulators, I’m not optimistic that much of anything significant will emerge.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Posted by John M. Simpson. John is a leading voice on technological privacy and stem cell research issues. His investigations this year of Google’s online privacy practices and book publishing agreements triggered intense media scrutiny and federal interest in the online giant’s business practices. His critique of patents on human embryonic stem cells has been key to expanding the ability of American scientists to conduct stem cell research. He has ensured that California’s taxpayer-funded stem cell research will lead to broadly accessible and affordable medicine and not just government-subsidized profiteering. Prior to joining Consumer Watchdog in 2005, he was executive editor of Tribune Media Services International, a syndication company. Before that, he was deputy editor of USA Today and editor of its international edition. Simpson taught journalism a Dublin City University in Ireland, and consulted for The Irish Times and The Gleaner in Jamaica. He served as president of the World Editors Forum. He holds a B.A. in philosophy from Harpur College of SUNY Binghamton and was a Gannett Fellow at the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies at the University of Hawaii. He has an M.A. in Communication Management from USC’s Annenberg School for Communication.

Google Antitrust Deal In Europe Would Impact U.S.

Google — facing the possibility of a penalty of around $4 billion — is trying to cut a deal with European antitrust regulators that would settle the regulators’ objections without having to pay a fine.

It’s not certain that an agreement can be reached, but if one is, it will have a direct impact on the United States.  Joaquin Almunia, EU competition commissioner, said that any concessions the Internet giant offers to resolve the EU’s antitrust concerns would be applied worldwide.

“We will look for worldwide solutions; it will not be very useful to get European-wide solutions,” he said.

One of the main complaints against Google is the way it unfairly favors its own properties ahead of competitors in search results.  We documented that two years ago in our study, Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing out Competitors and Muscling Into New Markets.

In May the Commission said it was concerned that Google was favoring its own services in search, copying material from websites of competitors without permission, shutting out advertising competition and placing restrictions on the portability of online search advertising campaigns from its platform AdWords to the platforms of competitors. Almunia told the company to offer changes or face a formal statement of objections with the risk of fines in the billions of dollars. In Europe antitrust penalties can be imposed before a court proceeding.

At the time I predicted that Google would not offer meaningful remedies.  Despite my skepticism, the EU is saying that Google is apparently responding. The New York Times quoted Almunia from a news conference Wednesday:

“We were trying to clarify to them how these solutions should be established. They were exploring with us what kind of solutions we were asking for, and now we have enough clarifications so as to start the process of technical meetings.”

“They will try to solve it. And I have reasons to believe that they think it’s worth it.”

Funny how $4 billion concentrates the mind, isn’t it.

Reportedly, one of the things that moved the possibility of a settlement forward was that Google agreed that any concessions it makes on search will apply to all  platforms including computers and mobile devices.

I’m sure the EU is acting in good faith.  I have my doubts about Google. The real difficulty in accurately assessing the situation is the secrecy that surrounds the negotiations.  We simply don’t know what Google has proposed and what the EU wants.  When an antitrust case gets to this stage, it really all should be on the public record.

Here is what another critic said, as reported by The New York Times:

“For years, Google has said it deserves the benefit of the doubt,” said Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, an industry group heavily financed by Microsoft. “Unfortunately, they’ve played us for fools every time.”

Mr. Zuck praised the commission’s “persistent work,” but said an “effective remedy” required an admission by Google of wrongdoing. “Without that understanding on the part of Google, it will never implement the kind of fundamental changes to its business practices that are necessary to curb these abuses,” he said.

I agree.

Besides the the European antitrust investigation, the Internet giant faces antitrust investigations by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and several states. Antitrust officials in Korea, India and Brazil are also looking into Google’s business practices. A European deal could well serve as a blueprint for settlements with other authorities.  The FTC and the EU have been in close touch about their investigations.

One difference is that the FTC’s probe includes an investigation into whether Google has abused its dominance of the Android operating system. The EU is not looking into that, but Almunia held out the possibility that it might.

Interestingly, in the semi-boilerplate language found in Google’s just-filed Form 10-Q, is a clear indication that the Internet giant finally gets that it is under scrutiny:

We are subject to increased regulatory scrutiny that may negatively impact our business.

The growth of our company and our expansion into a variety of new fields implicate a variety of new regulatory issues, and we have experienced increased regulatory scrutiny as we have grown. In particular, we are cooperating with the regulatory authorities in the United States and abroad, including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the European Commission (EC), and several state attorneys general in investigations they are conducting with respect to our business and its impact on competition. Legislators and regulators, including those conducting investigations in the U.S. and Europe, may make legal and regulatory changes, or interpret and apply existing laws, in ways that make our products and services less useful to our users, require us to incur substantial costs, expose us to unanticipated civil or criminal liability, or cause us to change our business practices. These changes or increased costs could negatively impact our business and results of operations in material ways.

I hope the Europeans extract meaningful concessions, though  I remain skeptical that will happen. Google has a history of stonewalling and foot-dragging.  The best solution would be to break Google into different companies devoted to different lines of business.

_________________________________________________________________________

John M. Simpson is a leading voice on technological privacy and stem cell research issues. His investigations this year of Google’s online privacy practices and book publishing agreements triggered intense media scrutiny and federal interest in the online giant’s business practices. His critique of patents on human embryonic stem cells has been key to expanding the ability of American scientists to conduct stem cell research. He has ensured that California’s taxpayer-funded stem cell research will lead to broadly accessible and affordable medicine and not just government-subsidized profiteering. Prior to joining Consumer Watchdog in 2005, he was executive editor of Tribune Media Services International, a syndication company. Before that, he was deputy editor of USA Today and editor of its international edition. Simpson taught journalism a Dublin City University in Ireland, and consulted for The Irish Times and The Gleaner in Jamaica. He served as president of the World Editors Forum. He holds a B.A. in philosophy from Harpur College of SUNY Binghamton and was a Gannett Fellow at the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies at the University of Hawaii. He has an M.A. in Communication Management from USC’s Annenberg School for Communication.

FCC Hearing at Stanford on the Future of the Internet



SavetheInternet.com
The last time the  FCC gathered public comment on Net Neutrality, Comcast paid people to fill seats so that people who care about an open and free internet couldn’t get in the building. Next week, the FCC is coming to Stanford, Thursday from noon until 7 PM. Public comment is slated for 4:30 and with Comcast currently under official FCC investigation after the AP busted them for data discrimination, expect problems getting seats.

We are in a unique moment in history when we can help to decide whether we have a closed Internet controlled by a small handful of giant corporations, or an open Internet controlled by the people who use it. Now is the time to speak up for an open internet free from corporate gatekeepers.

It is rare for all five members of the Federal Communications Commission to leave Washington, D.C., and they want to hear from you. There will be a public comment period – come speak up to save the Internet!

Media Consolidation — brought to you by Reagan and Clinton

Media Reform Information Center

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S.

in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.

http://www.corporations.org/me…

——

Media Consolidation on NOW

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 with jurisdiction over radio, interstate telephone communication, and later television. But the FCC has always struggled with a fundamental lack of clarity about its proper functions. In its mission to serve the public interest, should the FCC crack down on indecency on the airwaves? Should it use its power to rescind the licenses of wayward stations?

Get background information on some of the FCC’s more recent decisions below:

   * The Fairness Doctrine

   * Media Regulation Timeline

   * Details of FCC Rule Changes

   * Local and National Media Ownership

http://www.pbs.org/now/politic…

——————-

Source: PBS Now

Media Regulation Timeline

1941

Local Radio Ownership Rule, National TV Ownership Rule enacted. A broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35% of the nation’s homes.

1946

Dual Television Network Rule enacted, prohibiting a major network from buying another major network.

1964

Local TV Multiple Ownership Rule enacted, prohibiting a broadcaster from owning more than one television station in the same market, unless there are at least eight stations in the market.

1981     [Reagan Presidency]

Reagan Administration deregulation under the leadership of FCC Chairman Mark Fowler. Deregulatory moves, some made by Congress, others by the FCC included extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981. The number of television stations any single entity could own grew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985.

1985     [Reagan Presidency]

Guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming are abolished. FCC guidelines on how much advertising can be carried per hour are eliminated.

1987     [Reagan Presidency]

“Fairness Doctrine” eliminated. At its founding the FCC viewed the stations to which it granted licenses as “public trustee” – and required that they made every reasonable attempt to cover contrasting points of views.

1996     [Clinton Presidency]

President Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is generally regarded as the most important legislation regulating media ownership in over a decade. The radio industry experiences unprecedented consolidation after the 40-station ownership cap is lifted.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politic…

——————-

The result?

Top Telecommunications, Media and Technology Companies



http://www.openairwaves.org/te…

——————-

Does Clinton regret the Media Merger Mania he unleashed?

It’s not clear:

Bill Clinton’s Take On Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal

8/6/2007

The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996

  * Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news.

  * Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.

  * The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.

  * The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP…

——————-

The result?

Who owns the Media?



http://www.freepress.net/owner…

——————-

One Candidate has spoken out against this senseless consolidation of the Free Press — that Candidate is John Edwards

8/6/2007


John Edwards:

It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp.-Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

So far, Edwards is the only candidate to address this issue, and he deserves enormous credit for exhibiting such courage. The media is a potentially devastating enemy – just ask Howard Dean. However, Hillary Clinton has the greatest moral obligation to take a stand given what her husband saddled us with.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP…

—-

And Edwards has paid the Price for telling the Truth to the American People!

The price tag:  being “Virtually Ignored” by the Media, and even being dropped from Candidate Polls, based on the arbitrary decisions of corporate Media Executives, and little else:



http://www.johnedwards.com/whe…

——-

Survey USA Drops Edwards Based on “Judgment”

by sarahlane – Jan 17, 2008

Unbelievable! CNN narrows the Field of Candidates!

by jamess – Jan 13, 2008

What is Edwards saying that they find so disturbing?

Edwards Comes Out Strongly Against Media Consolidation

Aug 2, 2007

Challenges Democratic presidential candidates to cut off contributions from News Corp Executives

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards spoke out strongly against media consolidation which threatens the health of our democracy, by calling on Democrats to openly oppose and take the necessary steps to stop the merger between News Corp and the Dow Jones Company/The Wall Street Journal. Edwards called on Democrats to oppose the merger in light of the biased and unfair manner Fox News, and other media arms of News Corp, cover Democrats and the Democratic Party.

News Corp’s purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation. The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media – all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp. The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets – not fewer. It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.

http://www.johnedwards.com/new…

Al Gore, another Progressive Statesman, has also spoken out just as urgently against this “wild west” atmosphere for evermore Media Consolidation:

Gore Lashes Out at Media Consolidation

by Jill Lawless

August 28, 2006


“Democracy is under attack,” Gore told an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. “Democracy as a system for self-governance is facing more serious challenges now than it has faced for a long time.

Democracy is a conversation, and the most important role of the media is to facilitate that conversation of democracy. Now the conversation is more controlled, it is more centralized.”

In the United States “the only thing that matters in American politics now is having enough money to put 30-second commercials on the air often enough to convince the voters to elect you or re-elect you,” he said. “The person who has the most money to run the most ads usually wins.”

http://www.commondreams.org/he…

—-

Where do the other Candidates stand on the FCC, Media Consolidation, and the Fairness Doctrine?

It would be nice to know!

(The Fairness Doctrine, by the way, pre-Reagan era, used to require ALL qualified Candidates, get Equal Air time from the broadcasters, in exchange for their very lucrative broadcasting licenses.)

Edwards has the guts to take a Stand and speak out, like Al Gore did

do they?

John Edwards pickets at NBC – WGA



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

—-

John Edwards:

“One of the things we have a problem with in America is the conglomeration and consolidation of the Media.

We need to make sure that diverse voices are being heard, and we don’t have that kind of consolidation because that’s a big part of the problem.”

If the Trends set in motion by Ronald Reagan, and continued by Bill Clinton, are allowed to proceed unchecked as they have for 2 decades, this is the likely Future we will face

Instead of the “Big Six” Media Conglomerates —

we’ll end up with  the “Titanic Two”

Fox and MSNBC!  (and just wait til they merge)

If you think the Media stinks now —

just stay tuned …

and now a word from those Sponsors,

those VERY Special Interests down at www.MediaLobbyists.Inc

underwritten and enabled by “Business as Usual” politicians, SPONSORS!

Edwards: WiFi For Everyone!

(While this is a national and not a state-focused story, I think everyone on this site will be interested to hear about ways to move toward the goal of universal access.  Think about how this could impact local blogs if so many more people in this state could use the Internet, particularly in those underserved areas.  It would open up the conversation to include everyone.  There’s more at my site.)

This is the “chicken in every pot” for the 21st century.  And as you will see, it’s extremely doable and completely worthwhile for American competition, entrepreneurship and technological advancement.

In short, the FCC is about to auction off a portion of the broadband spectrum.  All the major telcos like Verizon and AT&T are expected to bid on the prime real estate.  But John Edwards has a better idea.  He wants to have the FCC use that spectrum to increase Internet access for all Americans, young or old, rich or poor.  This is the text of his letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

Dear Chairman Martin:

The upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum auction presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the next generation of American technology.

In recent years, the Internet has grown to touch everything and transform much of what it touches.  It’s not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.

As you know, the Federal Communications Commission is now preparing to auction the 700 megahertz slice of the spectrum.  This “beachfront” band is particularly well suited to wireless broadband because it has wide coverage and can easily pass through walls. 

By setting bid and service rules that unleash the potential of smaller new entrants, you can transform information opportunity for people across America — rural and urban, wealthy and not. As much as half of the spectrum should be set aside for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which has the potential to improve service to rural and underserved areas. Additionally, anyone winning rights to this valuable public resource should be required not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service. Finally, bidding should be anonymous to avoid collusion and retaliatory bids.

I urge you to seize this chance to transform the Internet and the future.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

Not only is Edwards asking that the principle of net neutrality be mandated for anyone who buys this spectrum (which is a big victory in and of itself), but he wants a significant portion to be used to wire America.  Ultimately, broadband should be no different than electricity; the access should come standard in any home, and you should pay the way you pay your electric bill.  Additionally, we should be wiring rural areas the way that FDR pushed rural electrification projects as part of the New Deal.  It was actually predicated on the same premise.

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation’s consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity […]

By 1939 the REA had helped to establish 417 rural electric cooperatives, which served 288,000 households. The actions of the REA encouraged private utilities to electrify the countryside as well. By 1939 rural households with electricity had risen to 25 percent […]

When farmers did receive electric power their purchase of electric appliances helped to increase sales for local merchants. Farmers required more energy than city dwellers, which helped to offset the extra cost involved in bringing power lines to the country.

Just as FDR worked to bridge the electrical divide in the 1930s, we should be bridging the digital divide today.  Poor and rural areas should be given the capacity to use the Internet, which will open new markets, allow for increased communication and expanded educational tools, and create that equality of opportunity that ought to be a goal.  That a top-tier Presidential candidate is pushing this forward-thinking a policy is very cheering.