Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Bradley & Guzetta Blog Has Moved
You might have noticed this blog is a bit stale. Please go to the Bradley & Guzzetta Blog for our current news and insights. Bradley & Guzzetta is also on Facebook. Use Twitter? Find Mike Bradley or Laura Bergus, there, too. Thanks for reading!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Lunchtime Bites with Mike: Is PEG Television Relevant in the Social Media World?
I’m not a big morning person. Never have been. So when it came time for blogging, morning was out. For now, I’ll blog over lunch. But “Lunchtime Bites” may at some point turn into “Midnight Snacks.” We’ll see. This is my first entry.
With technology today, a person interested in producing a video is as easy as pulling out a smart phone and shooting video and uploading it to Facebook or YouTube or some other type of interactive social media network. Anyone with access to widely available video recording devices can produce and distribute video. Add a mac or pc to the mix and now you can produce a fully edited video clip for distribution. So with these capabilities in our hands, is there any reason to support Public, Educational and Governmental (“PEG”) television?
PEG Channels are cable channels that are typically operated by cities or counties. A “Public Access” channel is generally open to anyone who wants to put some type of video programming on the channel. It is the public soapbox in the cable television world. An “Education Access” channel is typically a channel that is programmed by the local school district or college/university and could contain classroom instruction or video of school board meetings and other school activities, like a school pep fest. A channel that shows local government meetings and other information on the local community is a “Government Access” channel. These PEG channels have been around for about 30 years now.
While there are new and inexpensive ways to produce video, PEG operations still allow people to produce video in a higher quality and shown to a local audience. While you can put a video out on YouTube, the chances of it being seen by significant numbers of people is still very small. There are still some financial obstacles to producing video. Although the technology to produce a decent quality video has decreased significantly over the years, there are still many people that simply do not have access to the cameras to shoot the video, the computers to edit the video, or the internet to upload the content. Many PEG operations also provide training to help new producers make quality video productions. Sometimes these productions are later shown on other channels, such as PBS. Volunteer producers go on to careers in video production.
The audience of the PEG channels should also not be underestimated. For example, folks who want to know what is going on with their local government need only tune into their local government access channel. They will likely see the council or board meetings that they are interested in, shows about current city/county/state projects, and perhaps bulletin board notices with important information. Viewers know where this information is and the amount of content exceeds what you can put on a social networking site.
Is PEG Television relevant in a social media world? Yes! Should local governments exclude the use of social media? No! Local governments can and should use social media to highlight good programming and information. Robust viewership is good for the future of the PEG channels and good for the cable operator providing the channels. Food for thought!
With technology today, a person interested in producing a video is as easy as pulling out a smart phone and shooting video and uploading it to Facebook or YouTube or some other type of interactive social media network. Anyone with access to widely available video recording devices can produce and distribute video. Add a mac or pc to the mix and now you can produce a fully edited video clip for distribution. So with these capabilities in our hands, is there any reason to support Public, Educational and Governmental (“PEG”) television?
PEG Channels are cable channels that are typically operated by cities or counties. A “Public Access” channel is generally open to anyone who wants to put some type of video programming on the channel. It is the public soapbox in the cable television world. An “Education Access” channel is typically a channel that is programmed by the local school district or college/university and could contain classroom instruction or video of school board meetings and other school activities, like a school pep fest. A channel that shows local government meetings and other information on the local community is a “Government Access” channel. These PEG channels have been around for about 30 years now.
While there are new and inexpensive ways to produce video, PEG operations still allow people to produce video in a higher quality and shown to a local audience. While you can put a video out on YouTube, the chances of it being seen by significant numbers of people is still very small. There are still some financial obstacles to producing video. Although the technology to produce a decent quality video has decreased significantly over the years, there are still many people that simply do not have access to the cameras to shoot the video, the computers to edit the video, or the internet to upload the content. Many PEG operations also provide training to help new producers make quality video productions. Sometimes these productions are later shown on other channels, such as PBS. Volunteer producers go on to careers in video production.
The audience of the PEG channels should also not be underestimated. For example, folks who want to know what is going on with their local government need only tune into their local government access channel. They will likely see the council or board meetings that they are interested in, shows about current city/county/state projects, and perhaps bulletin board notices with important information. Viewers know where this information is and the amount of content exceeds what you can put on a social networking site.
Is PEG Television relevant in a social media world? Yes! Should local governments exclude the use of social media? No! Local governments can and should use social media to highlight good programming and information. Robust viewership is good for the future of the PEG channels and good for the cable operator providing the channels. Food for thought!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
FCC Releases Database APIs
Last week the FCC announced [pdf] that it has released APIs for four of its databases: Consumer Broadband Speed Test, Census Block Search, FCC Registration Number (FRN) Conversion, and FCC License View.
This means that people with fundamental coding skills will be able to analyze and present FCC data in new and hopefully insightful ways. For instance, the FCC Licence database could lead to some very striking graphical portrayals of media ownership consolidation.
Some early users have reported gaps in the data and unexpected results in using this data, but the FCC hopes that citizen software developers will create "mash-ups and data calls" to "leverage government data in ways never imagined." While the FCC may be coming a bit late to this game, if its goal is to remake itself with "dot com" responsiveness, it's good to know it at least has its hands on the appropriate jargon. Kidding aside, this is a move in the direction of greater transparency and usability of fundamental information about our national telecommunications system.
Friday, September 3, 2010
What Deregulation Looks Like - Literally
The Economist's Science and Technology blog had a nice image from Vietnam, with the implication that totally unregulated telecommunications may be good for competition but bad for municipal curb appeal:
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Google Inc said users of Gmail will now be able to call telephones directly
from their e-mail, putting it in direct competition with Web calling service
Skype and more traditional operators such as AT&T Inc and Verizon
Communications.
http://ping.fm/F0n94
from their e-mail, putting it in direct competition with Web calling service
Skype and more traditional operators such as AT&T Inc and Verizon
Communications.
http://ping.fm/F0n94
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Two Snails Racing: Waiting for Congress or the FCC to Move on Net Neutrality
The Myth of Existing Net Neutrality
The debate over net neutrality is not about whether an open Internet is good or bad. In terms of free expression and our imagined “marketplace of ideas,” an equal-access network would be very nice. If there were enough bandwidth for every appetite and application, and if broadband service providers could decide on and disclose actual speeds and contractual limitations on bandwidth use, net neutrality just might work. But bandwidth is finite. And ISPs will lose subscribers if they are too upfront about their limited capabilities. So, the argument over feared worst-case scenarios continues.
Net neutrality in the United States does not exist today. There are reports of Comcast and other ISPs throttling BitTorrent users as early as 2005. That means the past five years (at least) of Internet growth have happened while ISPs have been doing exactly what we fear most: deciding for us what type of service we can access. On the other hand, ISPs and content providers have been filtering our Internet experience in ways that most users prefer: think spam blocking or Google’s “safe search.”
The problem with the current discussion is that it fails to address this balance. Most consumers want some traffic shaping, some of the time. Most ISPs have to limit some bandwidth hogs, sometimes, to sustain their business. Yet our government is tasked with protecting us from service providers’ unbridled greed and anticompetitive intent. This protection comes in the form of regulation, even if that regulation is simply to tell service providers to be “reasonable” or “fair.” Even such vague standards of public interest allow the government to impose some type of sanctions if service providers are wildly out of line.
The issue now is if and how the federal government will intervene, hopefully to dictate some reasonable balance.
Snails Racing for Reform
To end the now-ideological net neutrality debate, we’re left looking to two players who are generally slow and ineffective when it comes to dealing with immediate technology problems: Congress and the FCC. So far, Congress doesn’t seem to have a plan, though Google and Verizon have kindly provided a self-protecting regulatory framework in case lawmakers need a little help. The FCC has scrambled since April, when the D.C. Circuit delivered a no-nonsense administrative law smack-down that dialed back the FCC’s ability to stop network discrimination. A possible solution to the regulatory void created by the Comcast decision is FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick’s “Third Way” proposal [pdf], which, at its core, would reclassify broadband Internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, opening the content-cum-service providers to the specter of common carrier status, subject to heightened regulation by the FCC.
Without diving into an explanation of the Third Way and how it may or may not fly, the FCC might be on shaky legal ground if it reclassifies broadband by declaratory order rather than through rulemaking proceedings. As the CTIA points out in its comments to the FCC in opposition of regulation [pdf], reclassification of broadband from one regulatory regime to another is not the kind of mere statutory clarification for which the courts have approved declaratory action. Rather, the Administrative Procedure Act, and even a relatively generous interpretation of the Supreme Court's seminal administrative law Chevron opinion, would likely require notice and comment rulemaking proceedings (like it did for initial classification of wireline broadband), by which the FCC can explain its change of course.
Should Wireless Be Different?
Much hubbub arose from Google and Verizon’s agreement that any legislated net neutrality rules should not include regulation of wireless services. What seems to be lacking from the lay commentary on this issue is the fact that wireline and wireless services are fundamentally different, from the FCC’s perspective. Wireless services require licensed spectrum to operate, and those licenses aren’t exactly easy or cheap to obtain. Because consumers have started using wireless broadband service to do the same things they do over wireline service, it’s difficult in that sense to justify disparate regulation. But the rules are different, and Congress has demanded that the FCC try to “reduce the regulatory burden” on wireless service providers, while subjecting them to limited common carrier regulations. So no matter if it makes sense today, the FCC's starting point might have to be regulating wireless and wireline broadband differently.
What’s Next?
Some Democrats in Congress are calling for the FCC to go ahead with broadband reclassification so it can prevent ISPs from further limiting the Internet. Conservatives don’t want more regulation than already exists. Since this is a complex problem, it’s unfortunate for consumers and investors that we’re left waiting for the bureaucratic behemoths of Congress and the FCC to find the silver bullet, fearing the industry has hijacked the process. But what about a more moderate approach? One that doesn’t require codifying industry-tailored non-rules, but also doesn’t force the FCC into legal contortions it cannot sustain. Bob Sullivan suggests a moderate approach that could work through the lower echelons of the FCC while we’re waiting for the higher-ups to hash out a big-picture deal:
The debate over net neutrality is not about whether an open Internet is good or bad. In terms of free expression and our imagined “marketplace of ideas,” an equal-access network would be very nice. If there were enough bandwidth for every appetite and application, and if broadband service providers could decide on and disclose actual speeds and contractual limitations on bandwidth use, net neutrality just might work. But bandwidth is finite. And ISPs will lose subscribers if they are too upfront about their limited capabilities. So, the argument over feared worst-case scenarios continues.
Net neutrality in the United States does not exist today. There are reports of Comcast and other ISPs throttling BitTorrent users as early as 2005. That means the past five years (at least) of Internet growth have happened while ISPs have been doing exactly what we fear most: deciding for us what type of service we can access. On the other hand, ISPs and content providers have been filtering our Internet experience in ways that most users prefer: think spam blocking or Google’s “safe search.”
The problem with the current discussion is that it fails to address this balance. Most consumers want some traffic shaping, some of the time. Most ISPs have to limit some bandwidth hogs, sometimes, to sustain their business. Yet our government is tasked with protecting us from service providers’ unbridled greed and anticompetitive intent. This protection comes in the form of regulation, even if that regulation is simply to tell service providers to be “reasonable” or “fair.” Even such vague standards of public interest allow the government to impose some type of sanctions if service providers are wildly out of line.
The issue now is if and how the federal government will intervene, hopefully to dictate some reasonable balance.
Snails Racing for Reform
To end the now-ideological net neutrality debate, we’re left looking to two players who are generally slow and ineffective when it comes to dealing with immediate technology problems: Congress and the FCC. So far, Congress doesn’t seem to have a plan, though Google and Verizon have kindly provided a self-protecting regulatory framework in case lawmakers need a little help. The FCC has scrambled since April, when the D.C. Circuit delivered a no-nonsense administrative law smack-down that dialed back the FCC’s ability to stop network discrimination. A possible solution to the regulatory void created by the Comcast decision is FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick’s “Third Way” proposal [pdf], which, at its core, would reclassify broadband Internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, opening the content-cum-service providers to the specter of common carrier status, subject to heightened regulation by the FCC.
Without diving into an explanation of the Third Way and how it may or may not fly, the FCC might be on shaky legal ground if it reclassifies broadband by declaratory order rather than through rulemaking proceedings. As the CTIA points out in its comments to the FCC in opposition of regulation [pdf], reclassification of broadband from one regulatory regime to another is not the kind of mere statutory clarification for which the courts have approved declaratory action. Rather, the Administrative Procedure Act, and even a relatively generous interpretation of the Supreme Court's seminal administrative law Chevron opinion, would likely require notice and comment rulemaking proceedings (like it did for initial classification of wireline broadband), by which the FCC can explain its change of course.
Should Wireless Be Different?
Much hubbub arose from Google and Verizon’s agreement that any legislated net neutrality rules should not include regulation of wireless services. What seems to be lacking from the lay commentary on this issue is the fact that wireline and wireless services are fundamentally different, from the FCC’s perspective. Wireless services require licensed spectrum to operate, and those licenses aren’t exactly easy or cheap to obtain. Because consumers have started using wireless broadband service to do the same things they do over wireline service, it’s difficult in that sense to justify disparate regulation. But the rules are different, and Congress has demanded that the FCC try to “reduce the regulatory burden” on wireless service providers, while subjecting them to limited common carrier regulations. So no matter if it makes sense today, the FCC's starting point might have to be regulating wireless and wireline broadband differently.
What’s Next?
Some Democrats in Congress are calling for the FCC to go ahead with broadband reclassification so it can prevent ISPs from further limiting the Internet. Conservatives don’t want more regulation than already exists. Since this is a complex problem, it’s unfortunate for consumers and investors that we’re left waiting for the bureaucratic behemoths of Congress and the FCC to find the silver bullet, fearing the industry has hijacked the process. But what about a more moderate approach? One that doesn’t require codifying industry-tailored non-rules, but also doesn’t force the FCC into legal contortions it cannot sustain. Bob Sullivan suggests a moderate approach that could work through the lower echelons of the FCC while we’re waiting for the higher-ups to hash out a big-picture deal:
[Consumers can seek] guaranteed minimum service levels, and a real government resource for complaints…[The government] should quickly investigate and fine misbehavior by ISPs, such as … misleading consumers about available bandwidth.
The FCC has received over 110,000 comments on its “Open Internet” notice of proposed rulemaking that was posted in October 2009. There are clearly many difficult legal and social issues at stake. In the meantime, we can demand basic consumer protections and enforcement of existing rules.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
FCC Extends Comment Period Again in Comcast / NBCU Merger
Today the FCC extended [pdf] the time to file Replies to Responses/Oppositions (which were due July 21) to Petitions to Deny and Comments (which were due June 21) to the Comcast / NBCU merger, at the request of the American Cable Association (ACA). The deadline was August 5, but has been extended by two weeks to August 19. The ACA requested the extension because NBCU's 599-page Opposition to Petitions to Deny and Responses to Comments was not immediately available for review on July 21, 2010.
This extension reportedly does not change the original 180-day timeframe for the FCC's merger review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
