Media Access Project

Left Leaning Luddite?

admin — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:54:12 +0000

Rick MacCarthur, owner and publisher of Harper’s has written a long screed on why the Internet is destroying journalism. Given his left-leaning politics, it is a remarkably establishmentarian argument, comparing the Internet to the evils of the Xerox machine (honest). MacCarthur was immediately the subject of derision from Gawker and The Altantic, among others.

John R. MacArthur: Internet Con Men Ravage Publishing

John R. MacArthur is publisher of Harper’s Magazine and a monthly contributor to The Providence Journal, among other publications. This essay is one of this year’s Delacorte Lectures at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. The Delacorte Lectures, presented each week in the spring semester, examine aspects of magazine journalism by a leader in the field of magazine publishing.

Long before I took myself off Facebook, I doubted the so-called revolutionary potential of the Internet. In part my viewpoint was formed early on by the annoying smugness of the pre-crash dot.com “entrepreneurs,” who always seemed to be murmuring initial public offering nonsense at a table next to mine in tony restaurants.

I recall one such occasion in the year 2000 when Lewis Lapham, then editor of Harper’s Magazine, and I were dining in indirectly lit luxury, somewhere near San Francisco on our promotion tour to celebrate the magazine’s 150th anniversary.

Lewis was born skeptical, but when he heard the three men at the next table discussing in hushed tones what sounded like easy money, he couldn’t help himself and he inquired about how we could get in on the ground floor. “It depends,” said one of them smoothly, “on what kind of platform you want to establish, how you want to present your content.” I said that I wanted to publish a magazine filled with sentences, not build a tree house, and the conversation came to an abrupt halt.

MORE:

Providence Journal

Can Aggregators Self-Regulate?

admin — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:44:42 +0000

RoadMAP is not a big fan of self-regulation, which is usually an artifice to avoid meaningful government regulation. But some things aren’t amenable to regulation, particularly when the First Amendment precludes it. Even so, RoadMAP might not have paid much attention to this article had it not come from the New York Times’ David Carr. He describes two approaches to deal with one of the biggest issues in digital journalism – how to strike a balance between constructive linking and outright theft of other people’s work. Maybe, just maybe, they might work.

Not surprisingly, the blogosphere is skeptical.

A Code Of Conduct For Content Aggregators

As words and articles became digitized over the last 15 years, they began to float, there for the plucking and replication elsewhere. Words like “curation” and “aggregation” became the language of the realm, sometimes used as substitutes for describing the actual creation of content. What had once been a craft was rapidly becoming a task. Traditional media organizations watched as others kidnapped their work, not only taking away content but, more and more, taking the audiences with them. Practitioners of the new order heard the complaints and suggested that mainstream media needed to quit whining and start competing in a changed world, where what’s yours may not be yours anymore if others find a better way to package it. So where is the line between promoting the good work of others and simply lifting it? Naughty aggregation is analogous to pornography: You know it when you see it.

MORE: New York Times

We Love/Hate Google

admin — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:20:34 +0000

This isn’t much of a surprise, but the folks at the Pew Internet and American Life Project have some numbers that demonstrate Americans’ schizophrenic feelings about search engines and privacy. We say we care, but we behave like we don’t.

Americans Love Google! Americans Hate Google!

This morning, the Pew Internet and American Life Project released the results of a February survey analyzing Americans’ feelings about online privacy. The main takeaway is something of a paradox: The majority of us are uncomfortable with personalized search and targeted ads. At the same, time, though, we’re more satisfied than ever with the performance of search engines.

Taken together, the polling shows that there is a great uneasiness about the status quo of data collection on the Internet. And yet, people like using the Internet.

In phone calls with Pew, 65 percent of Internet users said it’s generally “a bad thing” if a search engine collects information about individual searches and then uses it to rank someone’s search results — because it may limit the information you get online and what search results you see. Only 29 percent said this practice would generally be “a good thing,” because it would offer better and more relevant search returns. Similarly, when the question was framed more personally, 73 percent said they would “not be okay” with being tracked (because it would be an invasion of privacy); only 23 percent said they’d be “okay” with tracking (because it would lead to better and more personalized search results).

MORE:

The Atlantic

A Technical Fix For The Spectrum Crunch?

admin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:10:27 +0000

There is surely a need for more – much more – spectrum to be made available for wireless broadband. However, public interest groups have also argued that wireless carriers have failed to use their existing spectrum assets efficiently. By splitting cells, offloading to wi-fi and other tactics, at least part of the shortfall can be addressed. Here is yet another technological fix that looks like it is ready to go.

Tiny Transmitters Could Help Avert Data Throttling

A cluster of the devices can replace the transmitters atop a typical cell tower.

Major carriers, arguing that their networks are clogged with smart-phone and tablet traffic, are increasingly implementing data throttling, the practice of targeting heavy users by slowing down data-transfer speeds. Now a gadget invented at Bell Labs-a programmable, pint-sized transmitter that requires no new traditional cell towers-could rapidly add capacity and thus help avoid data bottlenecks.

The gadgets are known as light radio cubes. Measuring just six centimeters on each side, they are miniature transmitters and receivers that can be programmed to work flexibly in different contexts to add capacity.

Two devices together can serve a compact area such as a stadium or train station-handling just as much traffic, in that compact area, as a whole cell tower can serve a wider area. A cluster of 10 to 20 of them can form an array that replaces the transmitters atop a typical cell tower. They can boost capacity in part by collectively reshaping the radio beam in real-time toward the incoming signals to optimize performance.

MORE:

Technology Review

FCC asks Verizon, cable companies for more information on spectrum deal

admin — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:47:55 +0000

Hayley Tsukayama, Washington Post

The Federal Communications Commission asked Verizon, SpectrumCo — a group comprised of Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House — and Cox to submit more information on their proposed agreement for spectrum, including their commercial deals to cross-sell certain products.

Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House were also asked for information, individually.

The companies say that commercial agreements have “no bearing” on the spectrum deal’s effect on the public interest, but critics of the proposal say they should be considered as part of the same transaction.

In an FCC filing, wireless telecommunications bureau chief Rick Kaplan asked for “certain material previously redacted from their commercial agreements that is essential to the Commission’s review of the proposed license transfer.”

Andrew Schwartzman policy director of the Media Access Project, said, “At first glance, this is an extremely important development. Those of us who have opposed the transaction have argued that it is not possible to ascertain the potential anti-competitive impact of the cable industry’s deal with Verizon without the information that refused to disclose.”

In a statement, Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said that the company will cooperate with the FCC’s review.

“We have presented compelling evidence that SpectrumCo’s proposed sale of spectrum to Verizon Wireless will promote the public interest by transferring spectrum to a company that will efficiently put it to use to meet consumers’ increasing demand for broadband mobility, consistent with the Commission’s, Congress’, and the Administration’s policy goals, and that the commercial agreements provide substantial consumer benefits without any reduction in competition,” the statement said.

Another Cable Coup?

admin — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:06:04 +0000

Just the other day, RoadMAP opined that it is dangerous to bet against the cable industry. Here’s another example. Netflix, which many have viewed as one of the greatest threats to the future of the cable industry, may be in talks to turn itself into a super cable channel. Rather than attempt to develop home grown services to compete with Netflix, as Comcast just said it was going to do, why not cut a deal with the real thing? Coming in the wake of the cable industry’s peace pact with Verizon wireless, this could be another shrewd move to preempt competition.

Exclusive: Netflix In Talks For Cable Partnership

Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings has quietly met with some of the largest U.S. cable companies in recent weeks to discuss adding the online movie streaming service to their cable offerings, according to sources familiar with matter.

In what would ratchet up its competition with HBO, the talks could lead to Netflix becoming available as another on-demand option for cable subscribers through their set-top boxes, according to three people familiar with the talks. If a partnership came to fruition, a cable operator might offer Netflix as an additional option added onto a subscriber’s cable bill, according to a fourth person.

Any partnership would be a major about-face for many in the traditional cable industry who had initially seen Netflix as a threat to their $100 billion-a-year business.

MORE:
Reuters

Maybe You Can Shut It Down, But You Can’t Jam It

admin — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:55:35 +0000

Last week, the FCC requested public comment on whether it can and should address governmental shut downs of wireless service. MAP had joined with other public interest groups in asking the FCC to look at the issue after San Francisco’s transit agency did just that a few months ago. (This is a complicated legal question, and it is unclear who, if anyone, has jurisdiction over such practices.) Press coverage widely misreported the issue, such as this Reuters article headlined “US Regulators Seek Input On Phone Jamming Rules.”

The issue in San Francisco was NOT about “jamming,” i.e., using a transmitter to create interference that blocks a signal. It was about shutting down a transmitter. There is a big difference, both legally and in practice. Given the confusion, the FCC put out a notice reminding the public that jamming is very illegal. It is also becoming more common, since jammers are easily found on the Internet.

FCC Weighs In On Cellphone Jammers: They’re Illegal And Dangerous

A national obsession with cellphone jamming was ignited last week when a Philadelphia bus rider identified only as “Eric” admitted to carrying a cellphone jammer and using it to interfere with the cellphone signals of his fellow bus riders if he felt they were being too disruptive.

“A lot of people are extremely loud, no sense of just privacy or anything,” he told NBC10, a local news station that broke the story. “When it becomes a bother, that’s when I screw on the antenna and flip the switch.”

The story of Eric and his vigilante cellphone jamming habits quickly went viral as Americans frustrated with hearing half of a conversation in the grocery store, at the playground, in the street gleefully passed the story around on social media.

Media outlets capitalized on the story — finding other commuters who use cellphone jammers, and explaining how the device works.

MORE:

Los Angeles Times

TV Everywhere Going Nowhere?

admin — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:45:48 +0000

The cable industry is used to winning. It has the best legislative track record, and, to the dismay of the public interest community, the FCC has generally ruled in its favor. However, TV Everywhere, the cable folks’ strategem to stave off Internet-based competition, is off to a slow start. RoadMAP finds this interesting, but isn’t ready to bet against cable.

Plans for ‘TV Everywhere’ Bog Down in Tangled Pacts

It was dubbed “TV Everywhere.” But for many TV viewers, it has had trouble going anywhere.

Nearly three years after Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp. kicked off a drive to make cable programming available online for cable subscribers, the idea of TV Everywhere remains mired in technical holdups, slow deal-making and disputes over who will control TV customers in the future.

Now some media executives say the effort, aimed at insulating cable television against a rising tide of cheap online video alternatives, risks getting left behind-a concern that found voice last week at two different industry conferences.

While some cable programming is available online, much isn’t, or is available only to subscribers of certain pay-TV providers. That is because TV Everywhere-which is a concept, not a specific service-requires a lot of deal-making.

MORE:

Wall Street Journal

TV Just Won’t Die

admin — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:06:50 +0000

RoadMAP regulars know that it believes there’s a lot of life left in the television medium. RoadMAP saw a very interesting analysis supporting that thesis last week, but copyright limitations precluded sharing it. Fortunately, AllThingsD produced a synopsis of its key point.

PLUS:
Although RoadMAP is supposed to be limited to one item a day, it couldn’t resist sharing this as a bonus item:
How To Keep Google From Watching Your Searches

Why the Web Hasn’t Hurt TV
Every ambitious Internet company wants some of the billions consumers and advertisers spend on TV. It’s an article of faith among the digerati that dollars will follow eyeballs, which means big money for everyone from Facebook to Google to Apple.
But that hasn’t happened yet. And it’s possible that even as Web video grows, TV will continue to do just fine.
That’s the thesis of Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger, who made his case to investors earlier this week. Two slides from his presentation sum it up well.

MORE:
All Things D

You’re Being Followed!

admin — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:21:02 +0000

Google’s new privacy policy went into effect yesterday with relatively little opposition. Sure, there were a lot of news stories about it, but it appears that few of the hundreds of millions of Google users have deserted. The Atlantic has a terrific primer on data tracking that does a great job of explaining what this all means.

I’m Being Followed: How Google-And 104 Other Companies-Are Tracking Me On The Web

Who are these companies and what do they want from me? A voyage into the invisible business that funds the web.

This morning, if you opened your browser and went to NYTimes.com, an amazing thing happened in the milliseconds between your click and when the news about North Korea and James Murdoch appeared on your screen. Data from this single visit was sent to 10 different companies, including Microsoft and Google subsidiaries, a gaggle of traffic-logging sites, and other, smaller ad firms. Nearly instantaneously, these companies can log your visit, place ads tailored for your eyes specifically, and add to the ever-growing online file about you.

There’s nothing necessarily sinister about this subterranean data exchange: this is, after all, the advertising ecosystem that supports free online content. All the data lets advertisers tune their ads, and the rest of the information logging lets them measure how well things are actually working. And I do not mean to pick on The New York Times. While visiting the Huffington Post or The Atlantic or Business Insider, the same process happens to a greater or lesser degree. Every move you make on the Internet is worth some tiny amount to someone, and a panoply of companies want to make sure that no step along your Internet journey goes unmonetized.

Even if you’re generally familiar with the idea of data collection for targeted advertising, the number and variety of these data collectors will probably astonish you. Allow me to introduce the list of companies that tracked my movements on the Internet in one recent 36-hour period of standard web surfing: Acerno. Adara Media. Adblade. Adbrite. ADC Onion. Adchemy. ADiFY. AdMeld. Adtech. Aggregate Knowledge. AlmondNet. Aperture. AppNexus. Atlas. Audience Science.

And that’s just the As. My complete list includes 105 companies, and there are dozens more than that in existence. You, too, could compile your own list using Mozilla’s tool, Collusion, which records the companies that are capturing data about you, or more precisely, your digital self.

MORE:

The Atlantic

Media Access Project

Left Leaning Luddite?

Can Aggregator​s Self-Regul​ate?

We Love/Hate Google

A Technical Fix For The Spectrum Crunch?

FCC asks Verizon, cable companies for more information on spectrum deal

Another Cable Coup?

Maybe You Can Shut It Down, But You Can’t Jam It

TV Everywhere Going Nowhere?

TV Just Won’t Die

You’re Being Followed!

Can Aggregators Self-Regulate?