Saturday, May 17, 2014

Eight Things You Should Know About Net Neutrality - TIME

http://time.com/102268/net-neutrality-facts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

May 16, 2014
    
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler listens during a news conference after an open meeting to receive public comment on proposed open Internet notice of proposed rule-making and spectrum auctions on May 15, 2014 at the FCC headquarters in Washington.Alex Wong—Getty Images

As the Open Internet debate intensifies, here's a guide to the FCC, net neutrality, and what's at stake for the future of the Internet


For many years, net neutrality was a relatively obscure policy topic that mostly preoccupiedphone and cable companies, D.C. telecom lawyers, Open Internet activists and a handful of tech firms and startups. Compared to major national issues like the economy, national security, healthcare and immigration, net neutrality barely registered a blip on the American consciousness.
Those days are over.
POPULAR AMONG SUBSCRIBERS
Over the last three weeks, net neutrality has become front page newsacross the country, after a U.S. plan to update its Internet regulations was leaked to the press. The Internet exploded in commentary, tens of thousands of people called and emailed the FCC, the nation’s largest Internet and broadband companies weighed in, dozens of U.S. lawmakers registered their views, and protestors established an encampment outside the FCC’s D.C. office.
On Thursday, the FCC passed a crucial hurdle advancing the public comment process that will ultimately lead to new net neutrality rules. Four demonstrators had to be dragged away after disrupting the proceedings. Let’s take a take a step back and examine what this whole kerfuffle is about.

1. What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the idea that the Internet should be an open platform, and broadband companies shouldn’t be able to interfere with your right to access content and services online. Another way of putting this is that broadband giants like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T shouldn’t be able to block or discriminate against certain content — especially rival content — as it enters your home and reaches your computer.
Net neutrality advocates believe that all Internet users should have unfettered access to the Internet, just like all Americans have the right to travel anywhere in the 50 states without a passport. Without this open access, which many Internet users take for granted, startups like Google, Twitter and Facebook might never have flourished, net neutrality advocates argue.

2. Why is net neutrality important now?
The FCC’s net neutrality policies have been in limbo since a federal court struck down most of the agency’s 2010 open Internet order in January. That order prohibited broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon from blocking traffic like Skype or Netflix or putting them into an Internet “slow lane.”
Without such protections, net neutrality advocates fear the Internet could turn into a two-tiered system — or worse, something akin to cable TV with premium bundles and packages.

3. What is the FCC and what does it do?
The Federal Communications Commission is an independent federal agency overseen by Congress that regulates all communications “by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable” throughout the country. As such, the FCC has broad regulatory authority over corporate giants like CBS, AT&T, Comcast, DirectTV, among many other companies. The agency is also responsible for managing the nation’s wireless spectrum — the radio airwaves that make our smartphones and tablets connect to each other and the Internet.
In recent years, the FCC has increasingly focused on Internet access, both wired and wireless, which has become a crucial communications medium. Among the most important FCC mandates are promoting competition, innovation and media diversity in order to advance the public interest. The FCC is an independent agency, which means the White House can’t tell it what to do.

4. How is the FCC organized?
The FCC is led by five commissioners who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. The president appoints one of the commissioners to be chairman of the commission, which is usually split along party lines 3-2, depending on who is in the White House. Historically, the FCC chairman has had broad power to determine the agenda’s agency.
The current FCC chairman is Tom Wheeler, a Democrat and former venture capitalist who served as the top cable and wireless lobbyist two decades ago, and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama’s presidential campaigns. The two other Democratic commissioners are Mignon Clyburn, a former public official from South Carolina, and Jessica Rosenworcel, a lawyer and former senior Senate staffer. The two Republican commissioners are Ajit Pai, a former senior FCC official and Michael O’Rielly, a former senior Congressional staffer.

5. What just happened?
On Thursday, the FCC approved what’s called a “notice of proposed rulemaking” (NPRM) on party lines making Wheeler’s draft open Internet proposal available for public review, and triggering four months of public comment. The proposal seeks public input on the best way to ensure the Internet stays open, and to prevent broadband companies from blocking or discriminating against rival services, especially startups, potentially harming innovation.
Wheeler’s draft opens the door to so-called “paid prioritization,” in which broadband providers could strike special deals with Internet companies for preferential treatment. Commissioners Clyburn andRosenworcel both oppose such special deals, and offered their views in statements on Thursday. Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly oppose regulating the Internet-based on free-market principles and said as much in their own statements.

6. Why are net neutrality advocates upset?
Open Internet advocates argue that strong net neutrality rules are essential in order to ensure that the Internet remains the open, dynamic platform that has spawned a generation of technological innovation and generated billions of dollars in economic growth — much of it coming from tech startups. As a presidential candidate, Obama famously declared that he would “take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality,” and vowed to appoint FCC commissioners who felt the same way.
Many net neutrality advocates feel burned by Obama. And they weren’t amused when he chose Wheeler, who once served as a top industry lobbyist, as president of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and later as CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), to be FCC chairman. Wheeler insists he supports open Internet principles, but many net neutrality advocates are still skeptical. “Tom Wheeler spoke passionately about the open Internet, but his rousing rhetoric doesn’t match the reality of his proposal,” says Craig Aaron, president and CEO of Free Press.

7. Why are broadband providers and their allies upset?
Net neutrality advocates want the FCC to reclassify broadband companies under the Title II “common carrier” provisions of the Communications Act that have governed traditional phone companies for decades. Such reclassification, which Wheeler says he’s considering, would subject the broadband companies to tighter regulation. The broadband giants oppose such reclassification with every fiber of their being.
“Reclassification of broadband Internet access offerings as Title II — telecommunications services would impose great costs, allowing unprecedented government micromanagement of all aspects of the Internet economy,” twenty-eight CEOs including Lowell McAdam of Verizon, Randall Stephenson of AT&T, Robert Marcus of Time Warner Cable, and Brian Roberts of Comcast, wrote in a letter to the FCC. “Under Title II, new service offerings, options, and features would be delayed or altogether foregone. Consumers would face less choice, and a less adaptive and responsive Internet.”

8. How will the process work moving forward?
The FCC vote to approve the NPRM triggered a four-month comment period for the public to weigh in: 60 days (until July 15) to submit initial comments and another 57 days (until September 10) for reply comments. The agency is seeking input on several crucial questions including whether the FCC should prohibit paid prioritization completely, whether the new rules should apply to mobile broadband service, and whether the agency should reclassify broadband service under Title II “common carrier” principles.


The FCC has encouraged the public to participate in the process. Interested parties can submit their comments here, or at Docket 14-28: “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet.” Recent public comment filings can be found here. Email comments are also acceptedat openinternet@fcc.gov. (Remember, you’ll be filing a document into an official FCC proceeding, and any information submitted, including names and addresses, will be publicly available via the web.)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Americans Will Never Have the Right to Be Forgotten - TIME

  • http://time.com/98554/right-to-be-forgotten/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

8:46 AM ET
    
Stephen Lam—Reuters

Privacy has just taken on new meaning in Europe. The European Union’s highest court has ruled that any of the region’s 500 million citizens can compel Google and other search engines to remove information about them from the companies’ search results, even if that information is neither inaccurate nor unlawful. The surprising decision, which Google can’t directly appeal, is either a bold reclamation of privacy rights in the digital era or a mandate to let anyone rewrite history as they please, depending on your perspective. It’s also the clearest sign yet that U.S. and European data protection laws are heading down divergent paths.

The European Union has always placed an emphasis on protecting its citizens’ data. The latest ruling, for a case in which a Spanish lawyer demanded that Google remove links to an old news article about his debts, is based on a 1995 European Parliament directive that provided extensive protections for personal data. The Parliament is in the midst of passing an even more sweeping update to the law that will make “data protection first, not an afterthought,” according to the body. A key tenet of this new policy is the “right to be forgotten,” the idea that individuals have the right to delete information about themselves that is not legally required to remain online. “This is the fundamental right of an individual as opposed to the business right of a company,” says Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “When courts are asked to consider those claims, I think they rightly look more seriously at the individual’s claims first.”

The U.S. has no privacy protections that even approach the broad aims of Europe’s laws. It’s not because Europe is the innovator on this front—former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis first introduced the “right to privacy” in the U.S. in an 1890 article in the Harvard Law Review that was globally influential. It’s also not because Americans don’t value their digital privacy. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 68 percent of American Internet users believe U.S. laws don’t go far enough to protect individual online privacy. But a variety of factors mean American privacy legislation will likely never reach the scope of Europe’s laws.
First, Europe’s new ruling is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment, which grants citizens the right to free speech. A U.S. law that compelled a company like Google to limit the type of content it shows in search results likely wouldn’t pass muster in American courts, experts say, because it could be construed as a form of censorship. “The First Amendment really does prevent this kind of widespread unpublishing of data,” says Danny O’Brien, international director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “In the U.S., free speech sort of trumps privacy.”
Americans do have privacy protections, but they’re spread across a variety of state and federal laws that typically apply to specific groups of people. For instance, California has a law somewhat similar to the E.U. ruling that allows people to demand that tech companies delete their data, but it’s only for minors. On other online issues, like hijacking someone’s digital identity, punishments vary from state to state. With Congress’s ability to pass new legislation near an all-time low, it’s doubtful sweeping federal change will suddenly come on this front anytime soon. “The way in which the U.S. protects privacy is through a patchwork series of laws,” says Andy Sellars, a staff attorney for the Digital Media Law Project housed at Harvard University. “The EU has always tended to think of a privacy as more of an overarching thing that touches on all other domains.”
Money, of course, also plays a role in the way laws are formed. Though energy company lobbyists are the ones pulling the strings on shows like House of Cards, Google spent $15.8 million on D.C. lobbying in 2013, more than Exxon Mobil. “That has played a big role in what Washington has or has not done,” Rotenberg says. By comparison, the tech giant spent around $2 million to influence the European Union last year.
Even though the U.S. is unlikely to adopt similar policies, the E.U. ruling will still have global implications. Sellars says it’s likely that Google will only delete content in the countries where it is required to do so. Twitter has this policy, and Google does it on a small scale for issues such as German laws banning content related to Nazism. Such measures could lead to a decidedly different Internet experience on American shores compared to European ones, a concept known as balkanization that Silicon Valley views as anathema to the open Internet.
Many questions remain. It’s not clear whether Google will readily delete data when requested or try to protect its search results by taking individual cases to local judges, a strategy that could rack up huge legal fees. The boundaries of what can be deleted are also extremely vague, with the court only saying that information that is no longer relevant or timely is game to be scrubbed. Prominent figures won’t have a right to delete information in the public interest, but that exception is open to wide interpretation.



Ultimately, the ruling, which could eventually impact other tech companies like Facebook and Twitter, will establish a different set of online standards and expectations based on where users happen to reside. And those varying standards aren’t likely to be reconciled anytime soon. The question judges, legislators and citizens will have to grapple with, Sellars says, is “whether or not the Internet is truly a global platform where all of us have access to the same information or whether it is really just something that is going to be recaptured by nations over time.”
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The Fragile Middle: millions face poverty as emerging economies slow - Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/95fb1cca-c181-11e3-83af-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30KKsbal5

April 13, 2014 7:14 pm

The Fragile Middle: millions face poverty as emerging economies slow

By John Burn-Murdoch and Steve Bernard
Data show 2.8bn people in the developing world sit just above the poverty line, at risk of slipping back as economic growth in emerging markets slows
More than one-third of the world lives on between $2 and $10 a day, making this “fragile middle” the world’s biggest income group. Some 2.8bn people – 40 per cent of the world’s population – were earning $2-$10 a day in 2010, the latest year for which data are available from the World Bank’s income distribution database.

Adjusting for inflation and purchasing power, the share of those living below $2 per day has dropped markedly since 1981, from 70 per cent of those living in developing countries to two in five – but the bulk of those lifted out of poverty remain only just above the line. About 1.5bn people were earning between $2 and $4 a day in 2010, and this $2-$4 group has grown more quickly than any other across the income spectrum.

Trends in poverty reduction have differed markedly between countries. China’s economic prowess of recent decades has lifted millions above the $2 a day mark, but India has lagged behind the developing world average.
Source: PovcalNet: an online tool for measuring poverty produced by the Development Research Group of the World Bank

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

9 Countries That Hate America Most - TIME

9 Countries That Hate America Most

http://time.com/60466/9-countries-that-hate-america-most/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

    
Mar. 31, 2014. A giant American flag is unfurled on the field during ceremonies before the start of the game between the Washington Nationals and the New York Mets at Citi Field in Flushing Meadows, New York.Justin Lane—EPA

International approval of U.S. leadership improved last year, rising from of 41% in 2012 to 46% in 2013. This ended a downward trend in U.S. approval ratings, which had consistently declined since 2009.
While people around the world tended to have positive opinions of U.S. leadership, residents of some countries had a negative impression of the United States. In five nations, more than two-thirds of those surveyed disapproved of the current administration, according to the latest U.S.-Global Leadership Project, a partnership between Meridian International Center and Gallup.
POPULAR AMONG SUBSCRIBERS
Last year represented a major improvement for U.S. leadership, Ambassador Stuart Holliday, president and CEO of Meridian International Center, told 24/7 Wall St. There were several reasons for this, including a wind-down of America’s role in armed conflicts abroad. As a result, “The view that we are the major shapers of the world and our image as being the world’s policeman are fading,” Holliday said. An ongoing return to normalcy in the global economy, in which the United States plays an outsized role, has also helped, he added.
The United States has long-running political tensions with many nations that disapprove of the U.S. leadership. Among these is Iran, which has not had diplomatic relations with the U.S. since 1980, and whose nuclear ambitions and human rights violations are points of contention for the United States. In Pakistan, the U.S. has launched attacks against terrorists and insurgents inside the country. Most notable was the 2011 raid and killing of Osama bin Laden, which led to heightened tensions between the two nations.

Another potential reason for high disapproval of U.S. leadership is the relationship with Israel. The U.S. State Department notes America was the first country to recognize Israel in 1948, and that “Israel has become, and remains, America’s most reliable partner in the Middle East.” Countries with long-running disputes with Israel — such as Lebanon and the Palestinian territories — also disapprove of U.S. leadership.
Ambassador Holliday noted the situation in the Middle East is also influenced by a lack of clarity over U.S. policy goals and, to some extent, perceptions of the U.S. government’s support of Israel. This is driven in large part by a 24/7 news cycle that chronicles every twist and turn of the peace process, Holliday added.
Several of the countries that dislike American leadership the most have also undergone recent political upheavals. Mass demonstrations in Tunisia, for example, set the tone in 2011 for what came to be known as the Arab Spring. There has also been considerable political upheaval in Egypt following the forced resignation and trial of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Mubarak was long considered a stable ally of the United States.
However, while it may be easy to conclude disapproval of U.S. leadership is largely limited to the Middle East and North Africa, this is not always the case. Most notably, in Slovenia, 57% of residents disapproved of U.S. leadership — despite the fact that the country is both a major ally in NATO and a member of the European Union.
But what Slovenia has in common with a number of other countries that disapprove of American leadership is the citizens’ negative opinion of their country’s government. In 2012, less than one-quarter of Slovenians had confidence in their own government, and a similar number lacked faith in their judicial system, lower than in the vast majority of the countries in the same region. Similarly, less than one-third of Pakistan and Iraq residents had confidence in their governments.

America’s strong economy may also provoke resentment among residents of these countries. According to Jon Clifton, Managing Director of the Gallup World Poll, residents of many of these countries experience hardship and do not enjoy the kind of broad economic benefits seen in more developed countries. As a result, residents equate “U.S. leadership and the leadership of whatever the current economic order represents for them.”
GDP per capita in four of the nine countries that hate America the most was less than $10,000 last year. By contrast, U.S. gross domestic product totaled more than $50,000 per capita in 2013.
Limited access to basic needs may also add to the misery of the citizens in many countries that disapprove of the United States the most. Just 31% of Iraqis were satisfied with the quality of their drinking water in 2012, less than any of the 16 other peer countries in the Middle East and North Africa. In Slovenia, only 24% of residents said they were satisfied with the availability of good, affordable housing. This was less than in all but one other OECD nation.
To determine the countries that hate America most, 24/7 Wall St. relied on data from The U.S.-Global Leadership Project, a partnership between Gallup and the Meridian International Center. Gallup also provided data from a number of other indices it produced through polling in 2012. Additional economic information and estimates, including unemployment data, came from the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) 2013 World Economic Outlook. IMF figures on GDP per capita are given at purchasing-power-parity in order to show real differences in wealth. Data on life expectancy was provided by The World Bank.


These are the countries that hate America most.


Nine Countries That Hate America Most

By Alexander E.M. Hess, Vince Calio and Thomas C. Frohlich April 10, 2014 8:35 am EDT

9. Tunisia
> Disapproval rating: 54.0%
> GDP per capita: $9,447 (90th highest)
> Unemployment: 16.7% (12th highest)
> Life expectancy: 75 years (tied for 47th highest)
Animosity towards the United States in Tunisia culminated in a 2012 ransacking of the U.S. embassy in Tunisia’s capital, Tunis, by Islamic radicals. The people of Tunisia took to the streets to protest their leadership and a high unemployment rate, which reached 18.3% in 2011. The attack on the U.S. embassy came roughly one year after the protesters succeeded in ousting the country’s then-president, Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali. Although the United States has been vocal in its support of democracy in Tunisia and has provided $400 million in financial aid to the country since 2011, more than half the population disapproves of U.S. leadership. As in many countries that have negative views of the United States, Tunisia’s economy is struggling and many of its people distrust the government. The vast majority of Tunisians believed that corruption was widespread throughout their government, according to a Gallup study in 2012, and only 20% believed the country’s economy was getting better.

8. Iran
> Disapproval rating: 56.0%
> GDP per capita: $12,804 (78th highest)
> Unemployment: 13.2% (18th highest)
> Life expectancy: 73 years (72nd highest)
Iran has long been at odds with the United States, most recently over Iran’s nuclear program. The two countries have not had diplomatic relations since 1980, when Iran took more than 50 Americans hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Additionally, policy analysts have credited European Union and U.S. sanctions for causing some of the country’s wide-ranging economic problems, with inflation among the chief concerns. Consumer prices in Iran rose 30.5% in 2012 and a world-leading 42.3% last year, according to IMF estimates. This had serious consequences for much of the population, just 53% of whom noted in 2012 they had enough money for shelter, the lowest of 17 countries in the region. Similarly, just 54% said they consistently had enough money for food that year, lower than all but one other peer nation. The effects of a poor economy may play a role in the residents’ distaste of America, with 56% disapproving of U.S. leadership.

7. Slovenia
> Disapproval rating: 57.0%
> GDP per capita: $27,417 (36th highest)
> Unemployment: 10.3% (33rd highest)
> Life expectancy: 80 years (tied for 23rd highest)
Slovenia — a former communist nation that separated from Yugoslavia in 1992 — has suffered from a years-long financial crisis. Fixing the country’s weak financial institutions has been enormously expensive, according to a 2013 report in the Economist. Gross government debt as a percentage of GDP rose from just 35% in 2009 to an estimated 71.5% last year. While the country has struggled to repair its financial system and return to economic growth, protests against corruption led to the ouster of Slovenia’s government last year. In 2012, less than a quarter of the population had confidence in their judicial system, worse than in all but one other country in the area. Among the nations with the highest disapproval ratings of U.S. leadership, Slovenia is unique in that it is a NATO member. The U.S. State Department also asserts the two nations have a strong relationship.

6. Egypt
> Disapproval rating: 57.0%
> GDP per capita: $6,553 (76th lowest)
> Unemployment: 13.0% (20th highest)
> Life expectancy: 71 years (82nd highest)
Gallup collected survey data in Egypt before the ousting of President Mohamed Morsi and prior to the U.S. aid cuts later in the year. More Egyptians may now disapprove of U.S. leadership than the 57% who disapproved at the time Gallup conducted the surveys in 2013. Political turmoil has continued to plague Egypt since protesters succeeded in overthrowing President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Egyptian respondents frequently reported negative experiences — such as feeling sad, stressed, angry or experiencing physical pain. More than half said they were worried during much of the previous day in 2012, more than most other countries reviewed in the region. The U.S. Department of State currently advises U.S. citizens not to travel to Egypt due to instability and violence across the country.


Read more: Nine Countries That Hate America Most - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/04/10/nine-countries-that-hate-america-most/#ixzz30GmAOLyg 

5. Iraq
> Disapproval rating: 67.0%
> GDP per capita: $7,132 (79th lowest)
> Unemployment: N/A
> Life expectancy: 69 years (57th lowest)
The United States and Iraq have a long history of conflict. The Gulf War in 1991 was followed by the Iraq War, which began in 2003 and lasted until U.S. forces left Iraq in December 2011. Although the war has ended, the U.S. State Department warned that traveling to the country is extremely dangerous because of civil unrest and threat of kidnappings and terrorist attacks. The long-running presence of the U.S. military and the years of conflict, during which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including civilians, died have likely contributed to negative opinions of Americans. The new government has struggled since the war began. Many citizens disapprove of the regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who was elected to office in 2010 under a free election overseen by the United States. As of 2012, however, Iraqis were less likely to express confidence in their national government, military or judicial system than citizens of peer nations, and just 30% believed their country had fair elections — lower than in any country in the region.

4. Yemen
> Disapproval rating: 69.0%
> GDP per capita: $2,348 (38th lowest)
> Unemployment: N/A
> Life expectancy: 63 years (38th lowest)
More than 100 Yemeni citizens have been detained at Guantanamo Bay over the years. The United States also has been concerned over terrorist activity in Yemen. It is therefore no surprise that the two countries have a strained relationship and that nearly 70% of survey respondents disapproved of U.S. leadership. Also, just 9% of Yemenite respondents approved of U.S. leadership, less than in any other country reviewed by Gallup. The country suffers from a very poor economy, with GDP per capita at just $2,348 last year, among the very lowest in the world. According to the World Bank, more than half of the country’s population lived in poverty as of 2012. U.S. citizens are currently under advisory from the U.S. State Department to avoid traveling to Yemen due to the extremely high security threat level.

3. Lebanon
> Disapproval rating: 71.0%
> GDP per capita: $15,832 (66th highest)
> Unemployment: N/A
> Life expectancy: 80 years (tied for 23rd highest)
Like many countries that disapprove of U.S. leadership, Lebanon has a long history of conflict with Israel. Hezbollah, a militant group and political party deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union, has operated out of Lebanon for several decades. In February, Israeli forces bombed a Hezbollah convoy on the Syrian-Lebanese border. Hezbollah subsequently claimed responsibility for the roadside bombing of an Israeli patrol along the Lebanese-Israeli border in retaliation. The country is also strapped with debt. Its gross debt was nearly 143% of its GDP last year, the third highest in the world. According to a recent AP report, the country’s debt problem is compounded by corruption and a government unwilling to act. In 2012, 85% of residents stated that corruption was widespread, the most of any comparable country.

2. Pakistan
> Disapproval rating: 73.0%
> GDP per capita: $3,144 (48th lowest)
> Unemployment: 6.7% (47th lowest)
> Life expectancy: 66 (46th lowest)
While 73% of Pakistani respondents still disapproved of U.S. leadership in 2013, this was a six percentage points improvement over 2012. Relations with Pakistan have been tense since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda. Shortly after the attacks, the U.S. made Pakistan the base of its operations in its hunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the war on Afghanistan’s then-leadership, the Taliban. In 2009, a survey revealed that 59% of the Pakistani people viewed the United States as a bully and as a bigger threat than al-Qaeda. Further exacerbating the country’s negative view of the U.S. may be Pakistan’s struggling economy and poor governance. Just one in 10 Pakistanis said they lived comfortably on their incomes in 2012, according to Gallup, and only 23% of Pakistanis expressed confidence in their government.
1. Palestinian territories

> Disapproval rating: 80.0%
> GDP per capita: N/A
> Unemployment: N/A
> Life expectancy: 73 years (95th highest)
Four of five Palestinians disapproved of American leadership, by far the worst perception of the United States globally. One explanation for the country’s hostility toward the United States is Palestine’s conflict with Israel. Hamas, the organization that has effectively governed the Gaza Strip territory since 2007, is considered by the United States and European Union to be a terrorist organization. Possibly emphasizing the deep divides in the Palestinian territories, just 18% of respondents told Gallup the place they lived was a good place for racial and ethnic minorities in 2012, less than all but one other country in the region.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, April 28, 2014

Facebook Reveals Which Countries Censor Citizens’ News Feeds - TIME

Facebook Reveals Which Countries Censor Citizens’ News Feeds



http://time.com/59567/facebook-countries-censor-report-india/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

April 11, 2014
    
Facebook revealed that it has allowed the Indian government to censor the content its inhabitants are allowed to see on the social network 4,765 times between July and December 2013. Why? Indian legislation outlaws criticizing a religion or the state, so when government officials call blasphemy, Facebook investigates and eradicates.
“Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to share, and to make the world more open and connected,” Colin Stretch, Facebook’s general counsel, said in atransparency report that was released Friday. “Sometimes, the laws of a country interfere with that mission, by limiting what can be shared there.” If a country’s complaint is proven valid given local laws—Facebook’s next report may reveal how many times requests are denied—then Facebook removes the content for users only in that region.
This is the first time the social network has disclosed how often it allows governments to remove or restrict content for legal reasons. While India leads the pack, it was followed by Turkey, which restricted 2,014 pieces of content primarily because it defamed or criticized Ataturk or the Turkish state, which is illegal. Germany was allowed to censor 84 pieces of content because local laws prohibit Holocaust denial. That law also exists in France (80 restrictions) and Austria (78 restrictions).
A map chronicling how much was banned and why can be seen here.Facebook didn’t include information it would have removed anyway because it violated its community standards.
This isn’t the first time Facebook has offered up information on allowances it grants to governments. The company’s first Global Government Requests Report was released in August and disclosed how often it grants governments access to user data. That information was also included in the current July-Dec. report.
The United States was the leader in user information requests. It was granted 81% of its 12,598 requests for account details due to search warrants, subpoenas, emergency disclosures, and other official reasons. It was followed by the UK (granted 71% of its 1,906 requests), and India (granted 54% of its 3,598 requests).


This level of disclosure isn’t unheard of in the tech world. Twitter has been releasing this information for years.Between July 1 and December 31, Twitter withheld 191 tweets.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Microsoft Closes $7.2 Billion Nokia Purchase - TIME

April 25, 2014
http://time.com/77160/microsoft-nokia/
Microsoft closed 0n Friday its $7.2 billion purchase of Nokia’s devices business, a move Microsoft claims will increase the profitability of its Windows smartphones and increase its share in a market dominated by Google, Samsung and Apple.
In its announcement, Microsoft touted a study showing that the company stands to grow the fastest among the leading smartphone operating systems. It also promised the deal would accelerate its share of smartphones in emerging markets.
Microsoft controls a fraction of the global smartphone market — as little as 3%, according to Business Insider.
When Microsoft announced the deal in September, it reported that the company would make around a $40 profit on each smartphone. That’s an increase over the $10 profits it’s making now, as the purchase means Microsoft will no longer have to pay development and marketing costs to Nokia. Reuters reported that the venture would not be fully profitable until fiscal year 2016, citing Microsoft data.

an in 1871 as a Finnish wood pulp mill, lost its title as thelargest smartphone maker in the world to Apple and Samsung.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, April 26, 2014

5 Fundamental Truths for Tech Companies - TIME

April 18, 2014

    http://time.com/68146/5-fundamental-truths-for-tech-companies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29
Maybe that correction in technology stocks wasn’t such a bad thing after all. As tech companies have started the quarterly ritual of reporting earnings, the early indications are that, while many are still growing, they aren’t growing enough to meet the outsize expectations the market had built up.

So far, the flagship tech companies that have posted earnings bore few big surprises or disappointments. While several companies posted solid results, it wasn’t enough for the more hyped, overvalued stocks like Google. Others, like Intel, that were left out of last year’s tech rally performed much better.
It’s almost enough to make a fundamental investor believe the market hasn’t quite lost its head. There are several more weeks to earnings season to come, but if this week is any indication of what’s ahead, there are several trends emerging.

Internet companies are growing fast, just not fast enough.At Google, revenue excluding traffic acquisitions costs rose 23%. That’s a far cry from Facebook’s recent 63% growth but it’s still pretty impressive. According to RBC Capital, only two other large companies have maintained growth above 20% for 16 straight quarters: Amazon and Priceline. Being as big as Google and growing that fast is a tough act to keep up.
But for investors who have strongly associated Internet giants with growth, Google’s feat doesn’t impress much. The stock slid 4% Thursday after Google fell short of revenue and profit expectations. The growth simply wasn’t good enough to justify the stock’s lofty price. Even after its recent slump, Google shares are up 36% in the past year, pricing it at 29 times revenue.

Mobile is driving down ad prices, and it’s starting to be a problem. If there was one worrisome part of Google’s report, it was the decline in cost per clicks, the price charged for ads. CPC’s fell 9% at Google, a decline that has been accelerating for the past few quarters. In fact, Google’s CPC’s have been negative for a couple of years, around the time mobile ads began supplanting ads on the desktop Web.
Mobile is an opportunity and a problem for Google. It’s where the users are going, but it’s also, according to Google, a key reason why CPCs are in decline. Google may also be seeing lower CPCs from emerging markets and ads outside its own sites. The company plans to offer more detailed data on CPCs in coming quarters. Facebook has had better rates with its targeted ads in mobile feeds, but most other companies are struggling to see mobile ads pay.

The market is getting competitive for IT services. IBM’s stock dropped 3% after it said revenue fell 4% last quarter to $22.5 billion. For years, IBM was a stalwart leader in the market for managing IT services for other companies. But rivals like HP and Dell are getting aggressive on costs, and cloud computing is cutting IT costs in general, and it’s all taking its toll on IBM.
Revenue at IBM’s IT and outsourcing business fell 3%, its consulting division was flat and its server and storage business declined 23%. Software was a bright spot, rising 2%. IBM is still vowing to reach $20 in earnings per share next year, although some analysts notedearnings growth is coming from a lower tax rate and an aggressive buyback program.

Old school tech still has the ability to impress. Intel shares reached their highest level Thursday in nearly two years as itdelivered earnings slightly above Wall Street estimates, but showed the company is making a slow but sure move into chips powering tablets and mobile devices. That makes for a 23% rebound in Intel’s stock since last September.
Bulls and bears have been arguing over whether Intel can make the transition without eating into costs, which have been weighing on margins in recent quarters. Intel’s manufacturing prowess may be able to lower costs in the long run, while also pushing into new markets like sensor chips for the Internet of Things. So while Intel is still struggling in its legacy market for PC chips, it fighting for footing in growing markets.

Growth in Asian giants is outpacing US peers. For all of Marissa Mayer’s attempts to turn around Yahoo’s core business, investors still scour its earnings announcements for information on another company: Alibaba. Yahoo’s earnings from equity interests in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan rose to $301 million last quarter from $218 million a year ago.


China-based Alibaba was by far the big contributor to Yahoo’s equity earnings. Alibaba’s operating income rose 66% in its most recently reported quarter. Yahoo’s operating profit, by contrast fell 84%. And yet Yahoo’s stock has risen 6% since reporting earnings. Wags have joked that investors like Yahoo as a hedge fund better than an Internet company, and numbers like that show the truth behind the humor.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, April 25, 2014

Why Buffett Should Vote ‘No’ on Coke - TIME

Why Buffett Should Vote ‘No’ on Coke

http://time.com/76556/warren-buffett-coke-buyback/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

April 24, 2014
    
The discussion over inequality is all the rage these days, and it’s been given a new wrinkle with the hoopla over Warren Buffett’s abstention from a vote over Coke’s new compensation plan, which would award billions of dollars to Coke managers in Coke stock if they hit certain performance targets. Buffett told CNBC that he opposed the idea, but wouldn’t directly vote against it, because he loved the company, which was run by “great people” (which, it must be said, includes his son, who sits on the firm’s board). Traditionally, Buffett has opposed excessive corporate compensation, as well as the stock buyback plans that often fuel oversized packages, because, as he said in a 1999 letter to shareholders, “repurchases are all the rage, but are all too often made for an unstated and, in our view, ignoble reason: to pump or support the stock price.”

I couldn’t agree more, and I wish he’d gone further and actually voted “No” to the Coke proposal. Pumping up corporate compensation with excessive stock deals fuels not only inequality but bad decision making (since executives are incentivized to do things that pump up prices in the short term but cut growth in the longer term.
Buy backs are a case in point. Even more than in the late 1999s, buybacks are all the rage right now. University of Massachusetts professor William Lazonick, who studies the effects of buybacks on corporate compensation and inequality, recently put out a paper showing that between 2003 and 2012, 449 of the S&P 500 companies gave out more than half of their earnings, some $2.4 trillion, on buying back shares of their own company. While this might seem like a vote of confidence, it’s hardly coincidental that his research shows that buybacks also tend to go hand-in-hand with lower future earnings and bull markets. Companies don’t buy back stock in down markets because they believe that the market has undervalued their great products and ingenuity; they do it in bull markets because they want to bolster their own pay at a time when underlying growth is sagging.
It’s a strategy being carried out today at companies like Apple, which just announced more share buybacks even as it announced lower earnings, and at Yahoo, which has offset an underwhelming growth story by buying back stock. It’s happening at Coke, too, and most of the country’s largest blue chip firms. It’s no wonder that execs want to be paid in stock – buybacks almost always bolster share prices over the short term, and investment income like stock makes you a lot richer than earned income from actual labor. It also decreases the amount of the economic pie that goes to labor versus management.

All this worries me. If you chart the rise of share buybacks against R&D spending in corporate America since the 1980s, the lines make a perfect X. We are very clearly bankrupting our future growth here. As Lazonick puts it, “Since the mid-1980s, corporations have funded the stock market rather than the market funding corporations.” Not to mention workers, or jobs (most large American corporations have had zero net job growth here at home over the last 30 years, even as corporate pay has risen to nosebleed levels). No wonder Thomas Pikkety’s book on inequalityand the triumph of capital over labor is at #1 on Amazon.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Cities Where Americans Don’t Feel Safe - 24/7 Wall St. com

Cities Where Americans Don’t Feel Safe



By Alexander E.M. Hess, Thomas C. Frohlich and Vince Calio April 18, 2014 3:33 am EDT

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/04/18/cities-where-americans-dont-feel-safe/2/
10. Fresno, Calif.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 57.2%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 14.1% (11th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 539.8 per 100,000 residents (58th highest)
> Poverty rate: 28.4% (5th highest)
> Population: 951,648 (74th highest)
Fresno had among the highest property crime rates in the nation in 2012, with 4,424 crimes per 100,000 residents. That year, there were nearly 730 motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 people in the area, the most out of all but three other metro areas in the United States. Fresno continues to struggle with high unemployment. In December 2013, the area’s unemployment rate was 12.4%, among the highest in the nation. Like most of the cities where people do not feel safe, Fresno also had a high poverty rate of more than 28%, one of the highest rates in America. The residents’ impression of their city was also quite poor as less than 48% believed their city was getting better, well below the national rate of 59.7%.

9. Huntington-Ashland, W.Va.-Ky.-Ohio
> Pct. feel safe at night: 56.7%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 9.6% (86th lowest)
> Violent crime rate: N/A
> Poverty rate: 18.3% (111th highest)
> Population: 364,665 (166th highest)
Like several metro areas where people felt unsafe, educational attainment rates were relatively low. Less than one in five Huntington-area residents had attained at least a bachelor’s degree as of 2012, considerably lower than the nationwide rate of nearly 30%. In contrast to other metro areas where residents did not feel safe, a relatively low proportion of respondents, 9.6%, said they did not have enough money for shelter in the past 12 months. However, a typical household in the area made just $39,160 in 2012, among the lowest incomes. And while nearly 60% of Americans thought the city they lived in was getting better last year, just 40% of Huntington residents told Gallup their city was improving, among the worst such assessments.

8. Memphis, Tenn.-Miss.-Ark.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 56.3%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 13.7% (18th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 1056.8 per 100,000 (the highest)
> Poverty rate: 19.9% (76th highest)
> Population: 1,341,690 (59th highest)
Memphis had the nation’s highest violent crime rate in 2012, with 1,057 such crimes per 100,000 residents. That year, the area had 155 murders, or 11.5 per 100,000 people — among the highest rates in the nation. Incidents of aggravated assault and robbery were similarly prevalent as well. Nearly 20% of area residents lived below the poverty line in 2012, compared to slightly less than 16% nationally. Memphis residents were among the most likely Americans to state they lacked money for adequate shelter, with 13.7% saying so in 2012 and 2013. Despite all of this, many residents had strong evaluations of their own lives, as only residents in three other metro areas nationwide gave higher evaluations of their prospects in the next five years.

7. Fayetteville, N.C.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 56.0%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 12.7% (29th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 501.0 per 100,000 people (71st highest)
> Poverty rate: 19.7% (86th highest)
> Population: 377,864 (162nd highest)
Fayetteville residents were among the most likely to be victims of property crime. There were 5,359 property crimes and 1,827 burglaries per 100,000 residents in 2012, both the third highest rates nationwide. Violent crime was also a problem in the area. There were more than 500 violent incidents per 100,000 area residents in 2012, well above the national rate of 386.9 per 100,000. There were also 7.9 murders per 100,000 people in the area, versus 4.7 murders per 100,000 nationwide. Like many of the cities where residents felt unsafe walking at night, Fayetteville had a poverty rate well above the national rate of 15.9%.

6. Mobile, Ala.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 54.5%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 13.8% (16th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 552.1 per 100,000 (46th highest)
> Poverty rate: 21.1% (54th highest)
> Population: 414,233 (151st highest)
Mobile’s high violent crime rate in 2012 may be why so many residents felt unsafe at night. That year there were more than 550 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, more than in the vast majority of areas. The metro had 11.1 murders and voluntary manslaughters per 100,000 residents, among the highest rates in the country. The area also had 4,298.8 property crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, also among the highest in the country. Like many areas where residents feel unsafe at night, many residents in the area were also struggling to make ends meet, as 9% of Mobile’s households earned less than $10,000, one of the highest percentages in the country. Nearly 14% of Mobile’s population did not have enough money for shelter in the past year, among the worst rates in the nation.
5. Modesto, Calif.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 54.2%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 14.2%% (10th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 549.4 per 100,000 (48th highest)
> Poverty rate: 20.3% (64th highest)
> Population: 523,330 (124th highest)
With relatively high crime rates, Modesto residents are not likely to feel completely at ease walking alone at night. Motor vehicle theft was particularly bad in the area, with more than 780 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2012, second worst nationwide. Like many metro areas where people feel unsafe, Modesto’s economy has been strained in recent years. The unemployment rate was an abysmal 12.3% at the end of last year, among the highest rates nationwide. More than one in five residents lived in poverty in 2012, also among the highest rates in the nation. More than 14% of respondents said they had enough money for shelter at all times in the past 12 months, among the worst rates in the country.

4. Columbus, Ga.-Ala.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 54.2%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 14.8% (7th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 437.4 per 100,000 (99th highest)
> Poverty rate: 18.7% (102nd highest)
> Population: 304,291 (182nd highest)
Like in many of the cities in which people do not feel safe, 14.8% of Columbus residents said that they did not have enough money for adequate shelter within the past year, among the 10 worst rates in the country. A high percentage of people in the area struggled economically. The area’s median household income was less than $43,000 in 2012, versus more than $51,000 nationwide. Additionally, the area had one of the nation’s highest portions of residents on food stamps, at 20.6% that year. The region also had 166.3 robberies per 100,000 people in 2012, among the highest rates in the nation, and 4,778.6 property crimes per 100,000 people, worse than all but just five other metro areas in the country.

3. Stockton, Calif.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 52.2%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 12.5% (tied for 34th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 889.3 per 100,000 (6th highest)
> Poverty rate: 18.4% (108th highest)
> Population: 702,670 (97th highest)
Stockton had 889 incidents of violent crime for every 100,000 residents in 2012, higher than all but a handful of metro areas nationwide. That year, there were 89 murders, or 12.7 per 100,000 residents, among the highest rates in the nation. Cases of aggravated assault and robbery were also extremely frequent. Violent crime was such a problem in Stockton that year that the city’s police declared a policy of immediately dispatching officers only in cases of violent crimes and crimes in progress. The city of Stockton, which is currently working on plans to exit from bankruptcy, has lost police officers in recent years due to a combination of layoffs and retirements. At the end of 2013, 12% of the area’s workforce was unemployed. While this was down from 16% two years before, it was still among the worst unemployment rates in the nation.

2. Yakima, Wash.
> Pct. feel safe at night: 51.3%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 12.5% (tied for 34th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 349.4 per 100,000 (172nd highest)
> Poverty rate: 23.1% (29th highest)
> Population: 249,564 (178th lowest)
While Yakima residents often felt unsafe walking home alone at night, the area’s violent crime rate was actually lower than the national rate. Property crime, however, remains a problem. Despite Yakima County’s Crimestoppers grassroots organization, which encourages citizens to report crimes, the area had 1,217.7 burglaries per 100,000 people in 2012, and 673.2 car thefts per 100,000 people, both among the highest rates in the country. Like most metro areas in which residents do not feel safe walking alone at night, Yakima is struggling economically. Nearly one-quarter of the area’s residents had to rely on food stamps for at least part of 2012, and 23.1% of residents lived in poverty in 2012 — both among the worst rates in the country.

1. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas
> Pct. feel safe at night: 48.5%
> Pct. without money for shelter: 24.5% (the highest)
> Violent crime rate: 319.2 per 100,000 (160th lowest)
> Poverty rate: 34.5% (2nd highest)
> Population: 809,759 (90th highest)
McAllen was the only metro area in which less than half of all respondents felt safe walking home alone at night. This was despite the fact that McAllen actually had a lower violent crime rate than the United States overall in 2012, at just 319 incidents per 100,000 residents, versus 387 crimes for 100,000 residents nationally. However, violence along the border with Mexico remains a concern for many McAllen residents. The State Department warns against traveling to the neighboring city of Reynosa, Mexico, due to high levels of drug-related violence. Additionally, nearly 25% of residents stated they did not have enough money for adequate shelter at some point in the previous year, by far the most of any metro area. A lack of adequate shelter may be tied to the relatively low economic prosperity in the region. In 2012, 34.5% of residents lived below the poverty line, and the median household income was just $33,761, both among the worst in the nation.

By Alexander E.M. Hess, Thomas C. Frohlich and Vince Calio
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)