CYBER WARS - Protecting Consumer Data

Also a Greed File

"FCC chief outlines new plans to protect consumer data online" PBS NewsHour 10/27/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  There are new rules for broadband providers when it comes to collecting and sharing consumer data.  On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted for the first time to create protections on the transmission of personal information for broadband providers.  Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  New rules for broadband providers when it comes to collecting and sharing customer data.

The Federal Communications Commission voted for the first time today to create protections on the transmission of personal information from broadband providers.

Tom Wheeler is the chairman of the FCC.  And he joins me now.

What is a provider going to have to do under these new rules?

TOM WHEELER, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission:  Well, the key thing is that it is the consumers' information.  It's not the network's information.

And the consumer now has the choice to say how they want that information to be used and if they want it to be used.  So, there are really three key things.  One, there has to be transparency, that the consumers have to be told, here's what we're doing with your information.  Two, they have to have choice.  So, do you want to opt in or opt out of this kind of service?

And, three, that data, when it's stored someplace, has to be stored securely and consumers have to know if there is some kind of data breach.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  So, you have also expanded the definition of what is sensitive data.  And some businesses have pushed back, saying, the browsing history, the app usage, Internet companies like Facebook and Google, they already have all that, and you're placing undue burdens on companies like Verizon, AT&T, et cetera.

TOM WHEELER:  But what we're talking about is not the fact that you may go to a dozen sites that each will get a little bit of information.

We're talking about the network that takes you to every site and knows everything you're doing.  And that's the big difference.  You hire the network to deliver you to those sites.  You don't hire the network to take your information without your permission and turn around and resell it.

ROBOCOP - FCC Crackdown on Robocalls

"Hate those robocall polls?  The FCC is cracking down" PBS NewsHour 6/23/2015

Note the loop-hole 'they' can drive a truck through, the customer has to request.  I expect that phone companies will NOT ASK a customer with this new rule.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the years since the federal "Do Not Call" registry, there's been a big rise in the number of robocalls -- automated and recorded calls and texts that barrage your phone repeatedly.  Judy Woodruff interviews Tom Wheeler, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, about why the FCC is giving companies more power to block them at consumer request, plus subsidies for broadband internet.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It’s been more than a decade since the federal government first came up with a do not call registry to block unwanted phone calls.  That move had a major impact initially.  But in the years since, there’s been a big rise in the number of robocalls people get, those automated and recorded phone calls and texts that repeatedly go to your phone.

The Federal Communications Commission is now giving phone companies more power to block or prevent robocalls if consumers request it.

Tom Wheeler is the chairman of the FCC, and he joins me now.

And welcome back to the program.

TOM WHEELER, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission:  Hello, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So how is this rule different than the previous one having to do with robocalls?

TOM WHEELER:  Well, the original rule is a result of a 1991 act of Congress.  And 24 years ago, the world was a little different in terms of technology.

The people who were making the calls that interrupted your dinner at that point in time literally were sitting down and dialing.  And that technology, that approach got replaced by new technology that’s computerized, like everything else.  So, they just feed a list of numbers in and all of a sudden a list of calls get made.

And our rules didn’t keep pace with that, so that people were arguing that they had a legal right to do this.  And we just said simply, stop.  The consumer needs to be the one who is in charge.  The consumer needs to give consent that they want to be called, or if they are called and haven’t given consent, to remove that consent by saying, don’t call me anymore, or by calling their phone company and saying, I don’t want to get these calls.

INTERNET - Is Net Neutrality a Myth?

"Net Neutrality Fans Aren't Going To Like This Chart" by Gerry Smith, Huffington Post 5/22/2014

When news broke in February that streaming giant Netflix would pay Comcast for direct access to the cable company's broadband network, some experts said it marked the beginning of the end of net neutrality.

Yet a new report says that such deals are far more widespread than many realized at the time.

Many large tech companies -- including Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Facebook -- have quietly brokered deals with Internet providers to ensure their content is not slowed as it travels through their networks, according to a blog post published Wednesday by telecom analyst Dan Rayburn.

It's unclear whether these deals were brokered before or after a federal court in January struck down rules that maintained net neutrality, which is the principle that all Internet traffic should be equally accessible to consumers.  But Rayburn, an analyst at the research firm Frost & Sullivan, said such arrangements between web companies and Internet providers are nothing new.

"There are a lot of these deals in the market and have been for many, many years," he wrote on his blog.

Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Facebook did not return requests for comment.

Netflix, for example, accounts for roughly 30 percent of all web traffic.  Because data-heavy videos can create traffic jams on broadband networks, the company is paying Comcast to ensure its videos are streamed to customers more smoothly.

Such deals pertain to how Internet traffic flows between your Internet provider and third-party middlemen who operate the backbone of the web.

Those deals are technically beyond the scope of the Federal Communications Commission's recent proposal to allow Internet providers to charge web companies more to deliver their content via a "fast lane."  The FCC's proposed fast lanes only relate to the so-called last mile of online traffic that flows directly to customers' homes.

On Tuesday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler told a congressional panel that the FCC would start looking more closely at the type of deals that Rayburn highlighted.

In his blog post, Rayburn said the deals are fair.  If companies like Netflix didn't pay extra to ensure their content was delivered smoothly, Internet providers would be forced to raise prices on customers by passing on the extra cost of handling the increased traffic from all of Netflix's streaming videos.

This chart from Rayburn's blog indicates deals between tech companies and Internet providers:

INTERNET - Non-Neutrality, FCC's Shift on WEB Traffic (UPDATED)

Consumers, bend over and spread cheeks.

"F.C.C., in a Shift, Backs Fast Lanes for Web Traffic" by EDWARD WYATT, New York Times 4/23/2014

Excerpt

The principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.

The proposed changes would affect what is known as net neutrality — the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.

The proposal comes three months after a federal appeals court struck down, for the second time, agency rules intended to guarantee a free and open Internet.

Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, defended the agency’s plans late Wednesday, saying speculation that the F.C.C. was “gutting the open Internet rule” is “flat out wrong.”  Rather, he said, the new rules will provide for net neutrality along the lines of the appeals court’s decision.

Still, the regulations could radically reshape how Internet content is delivered to consumers.  For example, if a gaming company cannot afford the fast track to players, customers could lose interest and its product could fail.

The rules are also likely to eventually raise prices as the likes of Disney and Netflix pass on to customers whatever they pay for the speedier lanes, which are the digital equivalent of an uncongested car pool lane on a busy freeway.

Consumer groups immediately attacked the proposal, saying that not only would costs rise, but also that big, rich companies with the money to pay large fees to Internet service providers would be favored over small start-ups with innovative business models — stifling the birth of the next Facebook or Twitter.

“If it goes forward, this capitulation will represent Washington at its worst,” said Todd O’Boyle, program director of Common Cause’s Media and Democracy Reform Initiative.  “Americans were promised, and deserve, an Internet that is free of toll roads, fast lanes and censorship — corporate or governmental.”

If the new rules deliver anything less, he added, “that would be a betrayal.”

Mr. Wheeler rebuffed such criticism.  “There is no ‘turnaround in policy,’ ” he said in a statement.  “The same rules will apply to all Internet content.  As with the original open Internet rules, and consistent with the court’s decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted.”

Broadband companies have pushed for the right to build special lanes.  Verizon said during appeals court arguments that if it could make those kinds of deals, it would.

Under the proposal, broadband providers would have to disclose how they treat all Internet traffic and on what terms they offer more rapid lanes, and would be required to act “in a commercially reasonable manner,” agency officials said.  That standard would be fleshed out as the agency seeks public comment.

"Consumer groups warn dismantling net neutrality could stymie startup innovation" PBS NewsHour 4/24/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Federal Communications Commission is on the brink of changing the longstanding net neutrality principle, which allows consumers unfettered access to web content, and limits the ability of Internet service providers to block or filter material.  New guidelines would allow some companies to charge more (to the content provider, like YouTube) for faster service.  Gwen Ifill talks to Cecilia Kang of The Washington Post about what’s at stake.

WALL STREET - Comcast + Time Warner = Media Giant?

"How will regulators see the Comcast-Time Warner deal?" PBS Newshour 2/13/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  Comcast’s deal to buy Time Warner means the media giant, which already owns NBC Universal, is about to cast an even longer shadow over the industry.  If the deal is approved, Comcast will have 30 million subscribers and control just under 30 percent of all paid cable subscribers in the country.  It also becomes an even bigger player in the world of broadband Internet and video.

Geographically, Comcast grows as well.  It will operate in 43 of the largest 50 markets, extend its heaviest concentration of subscribers north all the way to Maine, and gain access to markets in New York City, Los Angeles, and Dallas.  But the $45 billion deal is being criticized by public interest groups worried about media consolidation.

We get more on all this from Edmund Lee of Bloomberg News.

INTERNET - FCC Net Neutrality Rules

"Will end of net neutrality rules impact future innovation?" PBS Newshour 1/15/2014

Excerpt

HARI SREENIVASAN (Newshour):  Net neutrality is the idea that broadband Internet service providers, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and others, should treat everything that flows across the Internet equally.  That means preventing service providers from creating fast lanes for sites they have business ties with, such as streaming video services like Hulu or Netflix, and slowing access to others, like Amazon.

It also means not charging more for YouTube and other sites based on their heavier bandwidth use or in exchange for faster speeds, all of which could affect what consumers see online, how fast, and at what price.  The principles were set out by the Federal Communications Commission nearly a decade ago.

The agency enshrined them in its Open Internet Order adopted in 2010.  But Verizon sued to challenge the agency's authority, and, yesterday, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the FCC acted improperly.  The 81-page ruling said the agency is wrong to classify Internet service providers as information services, but at the same time regulate them as common carriers, meaning as it does telephone and utility companies.

While the FCC decides whether to appeal, Amazon and others are watching to see if the broadband networks impose their own rules, favoring some content companies over others.

For its part, Verizon issued a statement yesterday that said, in part:  "Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet.  This will not change in light of the court's decision."

The ruling doesn't apply to wireless services accessed through mobile devices, which represent a growing share of the market.

SUPREME COURT - FCC Indecency Regs, Crack Cocaine Case, and Union Nonmembers

"Court Rejects FCC Fines for Indecency, Rules Against SEIU" PBS Newshour 6/21/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: The Supreme Court dismissed fines against broadcasters who violated FCC indecency policies but did not address whether the government has the authority to regulate indecency on broadcast TV. The justices also said unions must let nonmembers object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in a closed-shop.

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): It was a day of big decisions at the Supreme Court. The justices issued three major opinions, but the fate of the highly anticipated health care and immigration cases won't be known until next week.

Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was in the courtroom today and is here tell us more.

And, Marcia, on the big broadcast indecency question, the justices called the FCC rules vague. They sided with the broadcasters. But did they take on the big First Amendment questions having to do with the regulating of content on broadcast television?

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: No, they didn't, Ray.

SUPREME COURT - Profanity and the FCC

"What Role Should FCC Play in Policing Profanity on the Airwaves?" PBS Newshour 1/10/2012

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Cher, Nicole Richie, "Saving Private Ryan," and the PBS documentary "The Blues," what do they all have in common? Well, they have been on broadcast television, where they have used or included profanity, and they're all now part of a constitutional debate over federal regulation of indecency in a case argued before the Supreme Court today.

COMMENT: This video contains very good arguments on the subject, especially since it applies ONLY to public broadcast TV (not cable or satellite).

On the subject of nudity, I have always wondered why we in the U.S. are so constricted. When I was young (long, long ago, in a galaxy far away) I had access to books (incl school books) and magazines (like National Geographic) that had articles on other societies where women went in public with bare breasts and adolescents were nude. I thought nothing of it.

Almost any parent has had the experience of chasing their nude child around the house. Young children have no problem with nudity as being somehow wrong. The truth is we LEARN that nudity is "wrong" from the society we live in, it is NOT natural state of things.

Another excerpt

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: ABC was a challenge here, because it found that -- the FCC found that it violated the policy because of a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue" in which a nude woman was shown from the rear entering a shower.

In the above case, why should seeing a nude woman "from the rear" NOT be shown on public broadcast TV? This is a question our society needs to ask.

REGULATION - Wireless Users Protection From Sneak-Attack

"FCC's Genachowski: New Alerts Aim to Limit 'Bill Shock' for Wireless Users" PBS Newshour 10/17/2011

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): Most people who own a cellphone purchase a plan with limits on how long they can talk on the phone, how much they can text or use the Web. But customers often go beyond those limits and end up with a higher-than-expected monthly bill.

Today, the wireless industry, under pressure from the Federal Communications Commission, announced new voluntary guidelines requiring companies to send customers alerts before they exceed their limits. The FCC proposed such rules last year, then held off on implementing them under the new agreement.

Julius Genachowski is the chair of the FCC, and he joins me now.

Are companies really so blind? Not to give warnings as a standard policy?

You bet, they actually make more money from customers who are unaware of over-usage. From the wireless industry's point of view, customer ignorance is bliss.

REGULATION - NET Neutrality

"F.C.C. Is Set to Regulate Net Access" by BRIAN STELTER, New York Times 12/20/2010

Excerpt

The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to pass a controversial set of rules that broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.

The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications.

Before a vote set for Tuesday, two Democratic commissioners said Monday that they would back the rules proposed by the F.C.C. chairman, Julius Genachowski, which try to satisfy both sides in the protracted debate over so-called network neutrality. But analysts said the debate would soon resume in the courts, as challenges to the rules are expected in the months to come.

Net neutrality, broadly speaking, is an effort to ensure equal access to Web sites and cutting-edge online services. Mr. Genachowski said these proposed rules aimed to both encourage Internet innovation and protect consumers from abuses.

“These rules fulfill a promise to the future — to companies that don’t yet exist, and the entrepreneurs that haven’t yet started work in their dorm rooms or garages,” Mr. Genachowski said in remarks prepared for the commission’s meeting on Tuesday in Washington. At present, there are no enforceable rules “to protect basic Internet values,” he added.

Many Internet providers, developers and venture capitalists have indicated that they would accept the proposal by Mr. Genachowski, which Rebecca Arbogast, a regulatory analyst for Stifel Nicolaus, a financial services firm, said “is by definition a compromise.”

Since I'm a Computer Systems Specialist & IT Technician this issue is of interest to me, but it should be of interest to anyone who uses the Internet (World Wide Web) via a laptop/desktop computer using cable/wire OR there iPhone, iPad, etc.

"Fixed-line broadband providers" are the one providing access to your wired systems. "Wireless companies" provide connection to your iPhone/iPad/etc. The overlap MAY be broadband wireless access (via a special broadband card) to your laptop.

Personally I think wireless providers should use the same rules as wired. They should NOT be able to control to WHAT you have access to. Wireless providers only want this rule for profit motives. I am a believer in FULL NET Neutrality.

UPDATE

"F.C.C. Approves Net Rules and Braces for Fight" by BRIAN STELTER, New York Times 12/21/2010

Excerpt

Want to watch hours of YouTube videos or sort through Facebook photos on the computer? Your Internet providers would be forbidden from blocking you under rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday. But if you want to do the same on your cellphone, you may not have the same protections.

The debate over the rules, intended to preserve open access to the Internet, seems to have resulted in a classic Washington solution — the kind that pleases no one on either side of the issue. Verizon and other service providers would prefer no government involvement. Public interest advocates think the rules stop far short of ensuring free speech.

POLITICS - Sieg Heil ! - The Thought SS

"FCC Combing Air Tapes for Dirty Words" by REUTERS, New York Times

In its continuing crackdown on on-air profanity, the FCC has requested numerous tapes from broadcasters that might include vulgar remarks from unruly spectators, coaches and athletes at live sporting events, industry sources said.

Tapes requested by the commission include live broadcasts of football games and NASCAR races where the participants or the crowds let loose with an expletive. While commission officials refused to talk about its requests, one broadcast company executive said the commission had asked for 30 tapes of live sports and news programs.

"It looks like they want to end live broadcast TV,'' said one executive, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. ''We already know that they aren't afraid to go after news."

While live programming always has been problematic for broadcasters, it has become even more difficult under tougher commission rules approved in 2004. The new rules found that virtually any use of certain expletives will be considered profane and indecent, even if it is a slip of the tongue. In a March decision, the FCC found that the CBS news program "The Early Show'' violated its indecency rules because of a profane slip-up but did not issue a fine because the incident occurred before the new rules were instituted.

Live sports -- amateur, college and professional -- have long been a broadcast programming staple. Broadcasters have spent enormous amounts of money and energy to come up with ways to give audiences a better feel for the action. As broadcasters vie for viewers, technical advances that include such things as on-field microphones and in-car cameras have become as important as the announcers.

OK, American Public, watch what you say during that exciting football, baseball, or soccer game. The "Thought SS" are listening.

As for broadcasters, you had better stop recording of audiences at all live events. Restrict broadcasts of live events to your commentators only. After all, you don't want to be hauled off to jail because an excited fan exercised his/her right to free speech and used an unapproved word.

These people need to get a life!