The FCC identified a number of issues the government should address, including the high cost of laying new broadband lines in rural areas, a lack of airwaves for wireless Web access and ill-informed consumers.

The FCC is drafting a National Broadband Plan, which will lay out ways the government can improve broadband service in the U.S. The plan is scheduled to come out in February, and it's uncertain how many of its suggestions will ultimately be adopted. Already, some big cable and telecommunications companies are concerned the agency wants to impose rules that could undermine their business strategies and profitability.

FCC officials noted Wednesday that because more Americans are relying on smart phones to access the Internet, more airwaves need to be devoted to wireless broadband service. Agency officials have previously floated a plan to take some airwaves from television broadcasters and use them for wireless devices instead. Broadcasters are unhappy about that plan.

The agency took a step toward expanding wireless Web access by passing a new rule Wednesday to help wireless companies speed up local officials' decisions on new cellphone towers. Wireless companies asked the FCC for help, because they have had problems in the past getting state and local land-use regulators to make decisions on siting new cellphone towers.

Of the 3,300 applications for new towers or to put a new antenna up on an existing tower, more than 700 have been pending for more than a year, FCC officials said. The FCC said local communities should have 90 days to consider applications from carriers who want to put an antenna up on an existing tower, and 150 days for new tower applications.

The decision means that if local officials don't make a decision in that time, the wireless carriers can appeal to a court.

The FCC's latest broadband moves are part of a multi-stage process mapped out by Mr. Genachowski for examining whether American consumers have suffered from the largely hands-off approach the U.S. has taken on Internet infrastructure.

FCC officials said they are concerned consumers don't know enough about the actual speeds of broadband connections before they sign up with a provider. Often, the speed advertised by an Internet provider is much faster than the actual speed a consumer gets at home, which makes it harder for consumers to compare competing services. FCC officials Wednesday didn't say exactly what they would propose to address this.

The agency is also looking at how to increase the use of broadband among lower-income people and minorities, who subscribe at lower rates than the general population.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

Protecting internet access and users' rights was a high priority for MEPs hammering out the Telecoms Package.
Many critics say the eventual compromise solution is too weak and will not prevent disconnections.

Other measures in the telecoms package include an aim to harmonise the way mobile broadband is rolled out across the EU, which would help in the push to achieve 100% broadband coverage in Europe by 2013.

It also seeks to improve co-operation between member states' telecoms regulators and make it easier for incumbent operators to both provide and buy network services.

A law on citizens' rights aims to improve how quickly customers can change their mobile telephone number and strengthen personal data and privacy protection by, for example, allowing users to opt in to the use of cookies.

Fair hearing
Perhaps the most scrutinised part of the package is that which relates to file-sharing. It comes as individual member states introduce tough penalties for those who download content illegally.

France has introduced a "three strikes" policy for those who share illegal content. If letters fail to stop them, illegal file-sharers risk being disconnected. And the UK's Digital Economy Bill also seeks to impose technical restrictions, including disconnection, on persistent pirates.

Earlier this month, MEPs agreed on a compromise solution to protect user's rights which read: "A user's internet access may be restricted, if necessary and proportionate, only after a fair and impartial procedure including the user's right to be heard."

What the fair and impartial procedure will mean in practice is, as yet, unclear.

MEPs also agreed that restrictions on a user's internet access can only be taken "with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy".

But an earlier amendment which ruled that any application for cutting off internet access must go through a judge was rejected.

Some critics say the compromise is too weak while some lawyers argue that it could put the UK's newly introduced Digital Economy bill at odds with the Telecoms Package.

Meanwhile protests over the UK bill have grown, with 11,000 signing an e-petition against it while others predicted "civil unrest" as a result of the bill.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

Two years ago, Google cut the length of time it keeps users’ personal search data from ‘18-24 months’ to a maximum of 18 months, following questioning by European Union data protection officials.

This data includes the search term typed in, the address of the Internet server and sometimes more personal information contained within cookies.

The German officials are now lobbying to pass a law that will fine companies that use the tool, which enables web site owners and publishers to collect information about the number, whereabouts and search behaviour of their visitors.
They also fear that accessing information about visitors to sites such as health insurance companies, could allow creation of profiles containing too much personal information.

In addition, the officials say that Google Analytics does not comply with legislation that prohibits individuals’ data leaving the country.

In its defence, Google says it is ‘completely confident’ that the tool conforms with European data protection laws, and also complies with the Safe Harbour treaty that allows data to flow between Europe and the US.

The German ULD privacy commission – which is equivalent to the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – said in a statement that its concerns about how Google Analytics complies with privacy legislation are not resolved.
‘We have the regulators of the Federal and State Governments in conversation with Google,’ the organisation said.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

The final report draws from evidence published in our consultation document on 31 July 2009 and stakeholder responses to that consultation.

It recommends two main changes:

• Removing the rules around local radio service and multiplex ownership and national multiplex ownership. For local services, this means that all local commercial radio stations could be owned by one operator in a local area, alongside the BBC local radio services; and
   
• Liberalising the local cross media ownership rules so that the only restriction is on ownership of all three of: a local radio station; local newspapers (with 50% or more of the local market share); and a regional Channel 3 licence.

These recommendations could help maintain local content, by increasing flexibility for media companies. They would also reduce the regulatory burden on the local media sector and the radio industry in particular.

Consumers still rely on television, radio and press for news, so complete removal of the local cross media ownership rules could reduce protection for plurality.

We have based these recommendations upon our recent analysis of the local media sector – set out in our discussion document Local and Regional Media in the UK - published in September.

Reducing regulations
Our recent consultation on localness regulation for commercial radio, which closed on 23 October, also made a series of proposals aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on the radio sector, while protecting the local content that listeners value.

All of our proposals are recommendations to the Government in line with Ofcom’s statutory duty, under section 391 of the Communications Act, to review the media ownership rules and report to the Secretary of State at least every 3 years. This is our second review of the media ownership rules. Our last report was in November 2006.

Any decisions on these issues are a matter for Government and Parliament. Our radio proposals require legislative changes that the Government has proposed to include in its planned Digital Economy Bill.

Ed Richards, Ofcom’s Chief Executive, said: ‘In line with our statutory duties, we have today set out recommendations for Government and Parliament. These proposals would allow local media companies more flexibility to respond to the challenges that they are facing while at the same time protecting plurality for listeners and viewers; it is for Government and Parliament to take any decisions in this area.’

Read the full statement

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

The service allows people to view street-level pictures over the Internet and already has been criticized in several European countries for allowing individuals to be identified without their knowledge or consent -- potentially exposing embarrassing facts about their private lives to the world.

Switzerland's federal data protection commissioner wants Google to ensure all faces and car plates are blurred, remove pictures of enclosed areas such as walled gardens and private streets, and declare at least one week in advance which town and cities it plans to photograph and post on line.

Commissioner Hanspeter Thuer said concerns included that many faces and vehicle number plates aren't sufficiently disguised, especially where people are shown in sensitive locations such as outside hospitals, prisons or schools.
"The height from which the camera on top of the Google vehicle films is also problematic," he said. "It provides a view over fences, hedges and walls, with the result that people see more on Street View than can been seen by a normal passer-by in the street."

Mr. Thuer requested in August that Google take "various measures to protect personal privacy in its Street View online service."

"Google for the most part declined to comply with the requests," the commissioner said, prompting him to take the matter to Switzerland's Federal Administrative Tribunal.

Google said in a statement that it was disappointed by the move.

The California-based company believes Street View is legal and will "vigorously contest" the case, said Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer.

While the case may take months to wind its way through Switzerland's legal system, it could have an immediate impact on the availability of the Street View service in the country.

Mr. Thuer has asked the tribunal to require Google to remove all pictures taken in Switzerland and to cease taking any more pictures in the country until a ruling is made.

While Switzerland has long been famous for its reserve and privacy -- best illustrated by its strict banking secrecy laws -- other countries also have taken a dim view of Street View since its launch in 2007. In July, Greek officials rejected a bid to photograph the nation's streets until more privacy safeguards are provided. In April, residents of one English village formed a human chain to stop a camera van, and in Japan the company agreed to reshoot views taken by a camera high enough to peer over fences.

Google also accepted German demands to erase the raw footage of faces, house numbers, license plates and individuals who have told authorities they don't want their information used in the service.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

That means the FCC's national broadband plan must take into account the needs for real-time video and upstream pushing of complicated telemetry. It also must have the infrastructure muscle and ubiquitous reach to make that readily available wherever it is needed, said various panelists at Georgetown University Medical Center.

The Department of Homeland Security is monitoring the FCC's broadband plan, according to Rand Beers, under secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, which he suggests will need to take into account sufficient infrastructure to handle real time video for command center situational awareness, mapping systems, censors for emergency medical response, weather status, and more.

Citing President Barack Obama's declaration of broadband infrastructure as a strategic asset, he called the FCC's broadband plan a "unique opportunity" to improve communications and coordination in an emergency.

Beers said that DHS believed mobile broadband would be a key to reaching emergency and other field personnel in border or remote forest areas where it is currently not available commercially, and even in other pockets around the country, like in Rappahannock County, Va., where he has a farm. Filling in those pockets, he said, is "critical."

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who delivered opening remarks, said the FCC was at a "unique crossroads" in delivering broadband, and said she hoped that the commission's plan would insure access to the kind of technologies, including mobile wireless broadband, that their work requires. She said it was important to determine whether broadband as currently constituted is sufficient to meet their needs.

Beers pointed out that emergency medical treatment relies on speed, communications and coordination. Citing the Fort Hood shooting, he praised the soldiers on site who provided immediate medical attention. But, he said, what if that shooting had occurred somewhere without hundreds of trained personnel, without cell phone or broadband?

He said that the FCC's broadband plan, due to Congress in February, would need to take into account the availability of broadband interoperability of communications at all levels. DHS has its own emergency plan, which has already been delivered to Congress, but will update it with information gleaned from the FCC's effort, said Beers.

To speed adoption, he said DHS wants the commission to promote standards-based and vendor-neutral technology, both wired and wireless.

The benefits of broadband-enabled applications, he said, include greater situational awareness, faster decision-making, and better coordination, as well as economic efficiencies.

Beers said that legacy voice communications would remain an important factor in the transition to a broadband-based system, so that needed to be robust and interoperable as well.

But a representative of the emergency medical community pointed out that voice was now a bottleneck, and what paramedics and doctors need was a network of databases that could be accessed and updated in real time, including medical quality video, diagnostic imaging, and complex biotelemetry.

Dr. Howard Federoff, executive VP of the Georgetown Medical Center, said that broadband could be a force multiplier for emergency medicine, improving diagnostics, reducing medical errors due to inaccurate patient information, reducing misdiagnoses and allergic drug responses. It could also improve cost savings, including reduced mortality due to better treatment in the first, so called "golden," hour. He emphasized the need for infrastructure that would handle applications.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

The lobbying group for the pharmaceutical industry made its case during the first day of the two-day U.S. Food and Drug Administration public hearings in Washington. The hearings are designed to establish guidelines for how pharmaceutical companies go to market on the web and social-media sites.

And while 31 speakers representing such power players as drug maker Eli Lilly and search giant Google each had 15 minutes to present their respective cases to a 12-member FDA panel, perhaps none was more compelling than the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, which caught the panel's attention.

The panel, led by Thomas Abrams, the FDA's division of drug marketing, advertising and communications director, peppered PhRMA assistant general counsel Jeffrey K. Francer with questions after his presentation had concluded.
"Consumers on the internet are accustomed to viewing pop-ups, rollover text, links and other communication mechanisms," Mr. Francer said. "FDA should recognize, as the [Federal Trade Commission] has, that space limitations in certain formats warrant allowing certain long warnings to be accessed using a prominently labeled hyperlink."

Lack of guidelines
The lack of regulatory guidelines for marketing via tools such as Twitter, Facebook, blogs and websites, came to a head in April of this year when the FDA sent warning letters to 14 companies for search-engine ads that the FDA said violated regulations regarding presentation of fair balance. The reaction from drug makers, health-care ad agencies and internet sites was unanimous -- it's impossible for the same risk information that is conveyed in a 30-second television spot or a full-page magazine ad to be duplicated in a 140-character Twitter message or internet banner ad, hence the need for a defined set of guidelines for Web 2.0 marketing.

According to TNS Media Intelligence, internet spending by drug makers zoomed 36% to $137 million last year but, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, that represented less than 2% of the $10.9 billion spent on online advertising. In part, that was due to a lack of regulation and a fear by drug makers of FDA retribution.

Michele Sharp, senior director of U.S. regulatory affairs for drug maker Eli Lilly, said the dubious rules regarding internet advertising are so ambiguous that her company has, reluctantly, not pursued online and social-media marketing as it should.

Though the public-hearing process takes months to play out, Tiffany A. Mura, managing partner/director-digital for Boston-based Consensus Interactive, urged the FDA to institute its guidelines sooner than later.
"Guidelines need to be implemented in 2010," Ms. Mura said. "Months are the equivalent of years on the web."

Need for clarity in online advertising
Yahoo VP-General Manager of Display Advertising David Zinman said there's a need for greater clarity in advertising online. "We firmly believe the ad rules should be commensurate with the media," he said.

Craig M. Audet, VP-regulatory affairs marketed products for pharma giant Sanofi-Aventis, noted that 83% of all internet users look online for health information, according to Pew Research, and he likened the conversation between a company's website and a consumer to a conversation between a sales representative and a physician.

"I would say that any postings online would have those same characteristics," Mr. Audet said.
Some 32 speakers are scheduled to present on Friday. The FDA said it received more than 800 registrants wishing to speak at the public hearings.
 

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

Drug companies are dabbling with Internet advertising, but their efforts have been minimal. Most of the ads promote broader health or corporate initiatives, rather than individual medicines. That's chiefly due to industry fears of running afoul of regulators.

Seeking a bigger piece of one of the country's largest ad categories, Web companies including Google, Yahoo and WebMD Health are also planning to attend Thursday's hearing at the FDA, which has been scrutinizing drug makers' digital marketing efforts.
For the past several years, pharmaceutical advertising has been one of the few cash cows remaining for traditional media like television and magazines.

Drug companies spent $4.4 billion on ads for prescription drugs last year, according to TNS Media Intelligence, an ad-tracking firm owned by WPP.
Internet companies such as Google have missed out on most of those ad dollars despite the average of 91 million Americans who seek health information online each month, according to comScore. Pharmaceutical companies spent just $130 million to advertise prescription drugs on the Web last year, TNS says. The Internet ad figures only account for spending on display ads, the graphical ads that run alongside content on a Web page.

"The first place that consumers turn when they have a health question today is the Internet. Yet pharmaceutical companies still spend the vast majority of their marketing in traditional media," says Wayne Gattinella, chief executive at WebMD.
The FDA has established strict rules for drug advertising. Among other requirements, ads that mention the brand name of a prescription drug must also include disclosures, such as the condition the drug is intended to treat and potential side effects. The FDA hasn't set specific standards for online marketing.

The agency has said existing regulations can address many aspects of advertising on the Web, but that other aspects, such as search marketing and social media, could warrant additional guidance.

An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment on the agency's plans, noting that the purpose of Thursday's hearing is to gather information.
Industry executives say lack of FDA guidance about how to apply existing drug-marketing rules to new media has been a stumbling block.

"Clearly when you look at the number of people on Twitter and Facebook, there is no doubt how people want to communicate," says Ray Kerins, vice president of world-wide communications at Pfizer. "This is a new medium, and we need guidelines so that we can educate patients and physicians in a safe and appropriate way."

Of course, calling for more regulation could backfire and greatly limit the scope of drug marketing online. The FDA hearings are set to focus in part on how drug marketers should make required disclosures about their products within in the time and space confines of the Web.

Marketers have grown especially cautious about Web advertising since March, when the FDA sent letters to 14 companies, telling them that their search ads needed to include risk information about their drugs in the text of the ads.

Several drug makers pulled their search ads for a period and recently started testing ways to include adequate disclosures.
Eli Lilly, one of the companies that received such a letter, says it now buys search ads that refer to just the brand name of a medicine, instead of its name and the condition it treats.

A search for erectile dysfunction drug Cialis, for example, might elicit an ad with a link to www.cialis.com, which includes disclosures, and text that reads "Official Site. Free Trial Voucher."

Lilly also buys ads that refer to specific diseases without mentioning a treatment. A search for "depression," for instance, might bring up an ad with text that reads "Depression Questions?" and includes a link to Lilly.com/Depression.

The company says it is trying to figure out how to advertise medicines for which the FDA requires prominent safety warnings, such as Cymbalta, which is used to treat depression.

Some Internet companies and trade groups are proposing new formats for online ads. Google is pitching a design for its search ads that include an extra line for disclosures. For example, a search for "Yaz birth control" would reveal an ad with a link to the official site for the drug as well as a separate line that says "click to see full safety and prescribing information, including boxed warning." Yahoo is testing a new format for display ads that would include a link inside the ad for safety information.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group representing pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, is recommending that the FDA sanction a special logo for ads and Web sites that would indicate FDA-regulated risk information.

"It would be helpful to have some clear guidance that these practices are acceptable. We're not getting the clarity in the marketplace that we would like to get," says David Zinman, vice president and general manager of display advertising at Yahoo.

Social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Google's YouTube, raise other questions for drug advertising.

The FDA is exploring whether pharmaceutical brands should be held responsible for consumer-created content that mentions their brands, if pharmaceutical brands should be held accountable for false information about their products online and how they should be held responsible for monitoring adverse events related to their products.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

"There are more no-injury class actions ... more money-damage class actions," she said. Although she was speaking of the likelihood that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will take an aggressive approach to enforcement, the point is just as relevant to the issue of truth in advertising, and the fine line between false facts and puffery.

Richard Leighton, partner with Washington, D.C.-based firm Keller & Heckman, LLP, explained that, in essence, puffery means "never having to say you're sorry" for untruths, or exaggerated claims. The firm represents McDonald's, which has had first-hand experience on the issue of whether to gird for legal battle versus a competitor who may leave court with a decision in its favor--with McDonald's walking out, having been roughed up for a fee.

Cate McGinn, managing counsel of global nutrition at McDonald's, said the Oak Brook, Ill.-based company must choose constantly. "Our first step, when we see these kinds of ads, is to determine whether to pay attention to it," she said. "When you look at whether it's puffery, is it worth it to call attention to? Is the cost worth it, or do we ignore it and stick to marketing?"

Leighton said the issue is critical because comparative claims on price and value have increased as marketers have become more brazen in calling out competitors in ads. Also increasing, says Leighton, are legal challenges and consequently, the puffery defense.

McDonald's was challenged by Subway in an ad that demonstrated, graphically, that a Big Mac has more fat than a Subway sandwich. While McDonald's declined to pursue, a consumer group took up the case. The National Legal and Policy Center asked the FTC to order Subway to stop its ads, which compared eating a foot-long Subway Club to eating a McDonald's Big Mac. The group said the ads claim "less fat," and they didn't disclose that the sub has "more sodium, carbohydrates, calories and sugar than the Big Mac." Subway discontinued the ad and told the FTC future ads would "include more prominent disclosures."

Leighton says puffery can be obviously false or obviously not demonstrable, but it's a claim that no reasonable audience would believe. "If it is not material to a consumer, it will be puffery, you can defend it as puffery. What is material: a claim that likely motivates an intended audience to purchase the product, not purchase a competing item, or recommend the item to a patient or to a customer."

Among the examples was a print ad for White Castle hamburgers that he said centered on a claim that would qualify as puffery. In the ad, a giant foam "number one" hand at a sporting event holds a burger, and the headline reads "Number One Party Pleaser!"

Leighton also displayed an ad by regional pasta company Mueller's in which the company claimed it was "America's favorite pasta," which might be difficult for a brand that did not sell east of the Mississippi. Amazingly, the court ruled in Mueller's favor--that the message was puff--in a case brought by a competitor. Leighton said the judge hauled out a 1940's-era dictionary and found under the definition of "favorite" an amorphous definition.

He said that because of the potential for just such outcomes after a long, costly legal route to gagging a competitor's false claims, the better approach is through parallel relationships between c-suite executives and marketers and their peers at the competing company.

His advice: "The most effective way to get rid of an objectionable ad is if you have built up, over the years, a good business relationship with a peer at the competitive company," he said. "Chief executive to chief executive, marketing manager to marketing manager. If you know [your opposite] when something comes up, you can handle it informally because at each stage of formality, it becomes more difficult."

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

"At the moment, the US government is the only body exercising some oversight over Icann. I believe that the US, so far, has done this in a reasonable manner, " Reding said in her weekly internet address.

"In the long run, it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world."

The current agreement between Icann and the Department of Commerce runs out on 30 September, which the commissioner described as the "moment of truth".

Reding favours a fully privatised and accountable Icann which would be subject to review by an international tribunal, not just the California courts where the organisation is based.

Governments would be able to make recommendations to Icann by setting up a 'G-12 for internet governance' group, which would comprise two representatives from North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from Asia and Australia, as well as a chairman as a non-voting member.

The EU will begin discussing the case this week, and Reding hopes that president Obama will take these views into consideration.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.