Monday, May 19, 2014

AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion in Move to Expand Clout - New York Times

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/att-to-buy-directv-for-48-5-billion/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=edit_th_20140519&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=56381892&_r=0

AT&T agreed on Sunday to buy the satellite television operator DirecTV for $48.5 billion, trying to tilt the balance of power with media companies as the market for broadband Internet and video shifts.

With the acquisition, AT&T becomes the latest telecommunications giant seeking to establish an even greater reach.
Comcast agreed in February to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion, a bid to become the country’s dominant provider of cable TV and high-speed Internet access. And Sprint, which is controlled by the Japanese telecom company SoftBank, has made no secret of its desire to merge with T-Mobile USA, creating a serious rival to Verizon and AT&T.
“The media chessboard is moving more this year than it has in the past decade,” said Richard Greenfield, a media analyst with the brokerage firm BTIG. “You’re seeing major shifts. Everyone is jockeying for position.”
The newest round of consolidation may weigh heavily on the minds of government regulators, who have expressed growing concern that the nation’s television and Internet services are increasingly controlled by just a few corporate behemoths.
For consumers, the acquisition may change little, at least at first, since AT&T and DirecTV share little overlap. AT&T said on Sunday that it planned to bundle its new acquisition’s services with existing offerings like broadband Internet and cellphone service.
To some analysts, AT&T’s latest acquisition seems questionable. The pay television business is considered a mature market whose subscriber growth has slowed sharply in recent years.

Still, the company has been trying to compensate for slowing growth in its own core businesses, including by moving into home security offerings and mobile data for cars.

Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T’s chief executive, said in an interview on Sunday that he had discussed the possibility of buying DirecTV with his counterpart at the satellite TV provider, Mike White, for some time.
By acquiring the country’s biggest satellite television operator, AT&T would gain more clout in negotiating with media companies as it increasingly focuses on video offerings. Through the deal, AT&T would become the country’s second-biggest pay TV provider, behind only Comcast. AT&T has about 5.7 million TV customers through its U-verse service, while the satellite TV operator has about 20.3 million customers in the United States.

The acquisition would also bring to AT&T DirecTV’s existing content at a time when AT&T has made video services a priority. DirecTV’s offerings include the National Football League’s “Sunday Ticket,” and it owns minority stakes in the Game Show Network and MLB Network.

It would also help get AT&T into new markets like video and data services inside airplanes.

“If you think about what we’re trying to accomplish, we’re trying to get way down the road to get content across multiple devices,” Mr. Stephenson said. “The more we peeled the onion back, frankly the better we felt about this.”

DirecTV would also bolster AT&T’s financial resources as it continues to invest in wireless-broadband capabilities, an effort that is expected to include bidding at least $9 billion for wireless network spectrum in a forthcoming government auction. The satellite TV company generated about $2.6 billion in free cash flow last year. Buying DirecTV would also expand AT&T’s presence in Latin America, where the satellite company already has more than 18 million customers and expects to grow substantially as more households subscribe to pay TV services.
Under the agreement’s terms, AT&T would pay $95 a share in stock and cash — roughly 10 percent higher than DirecTV’s closing stock price on Friday and about 30 percent higher than where its shares were trading before word of a potential transaction began to emerge.
Including the assumption of DirecTV’s debt, the deal is worth about $67.1 billion. Existing DirecTV shareholders would own 15 to 16 percent of the combined company after closing, which is expected in a year’s time.

The deal is the biggest in years for AT&T, which has long looked to acquisitions for growth. It is the largest transaction the company has announced since its aborted $39 billion offer for T-Mobile three years ago, a takeover fiercely opposed by antitrust regulators because it would have cut down on the number of wireless phone service providers.

This time, some analysts believe the company will face less heat from the federal government. By their reckoning, regulators are likely to look favorably upon a deal that creates a bulwark against a strengthened Comcast.

“They want wireless to compete with wires,” Mr. Greenfield, the media analyst, said. “The only way to complete that is to allow these deals to occur.”

AT&T has also learned from the botched deal. It will not have to pay DirecTV a breakup fee if the deal does not go through. It had to pay T-Mobile $6 billion.

Mr. Stephenson, the AT&T chief, argued that the deal should be approved since it would not meaningfully reduce competition in the pay TV industry.

“We became very comfortable that this is a deal that should pass regulatory muster,” he said. Referring to Comcast’s bid for Time Warner Cable, he added, “Our deal is a very different deal.”

At the same time, by moving forward with its DirecTV deal now, AT&T will probably complicate regulatory approvals for the cable television merger, according to several investment bankers.

But it is unclear whether investors and others will show enthusiasm for the DirecTV takeover, questioning the strategic fit.
“When I first heard the news, I was scratching my head,” said Jim Nail, an analyst with Forrester Research. “Satellite is kind of a doomed technology. I don’t see it being a long-term proposition.”

AT&T intends to pay for the deal with cash on hand, debt and the sale of some assets. To help ease regulatory concerns in Latin America, the company plans to sell its roughly 8 percent stake inAmérica Móvil, the telecommunications giant controlled by the billionaire Carlos Slim Helú.

The pace of consolidation, meanwhile, may prompt Sprint and SoftBank to proceed with a bid for T-Mobile, a deal that has already faced vocal opposition from several officials at the Federal Communications Commission. In that view, a merger would shrink an already consolidated industry to an unacceptable three major players.

But Sprint and SoftBank have argued that such a deal would create more competition in the fast-growing wireless space, creating a more formidable opponent to Verizon and AT&T.

AT&T’s move also raises questions for the country’s other major satellite television provider, Dish Network. That company’s chief executive, Charles W. Ergen, has made noises about striking acquisitions to become a true broadband service provider, while also hinting that he may be willing to sell.

But AT&T was concerned that buying Dish would invite more regulatory scrutiny because of both its broadband ambitions and its existing trove of wireless spectrum, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Brian X. Chen contributed reporting.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

In Taking Crimea, Putin Gains a Sea of Fuel Reserves - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-crimea-putin-gains-a-sea-of-fuel-reserves.html?emc=edit_th_20140518&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=56381892&_r=0

EUROPE

In Taking Crimea, Putin Gains a Sea of Fuel Reserves

By WILLIAM J. BROADMAY 17, 2014
    Photo
    Vladimir V. Putin of Russia visiting a Lukoil oil platform in the Caspian Sea in 2010.CreditRIA Novosti/Alexei Druzhinin, via Pool, via Reuters

    When Russia seized Crimea in March, it acquired not just the Crimean landmass but also a maritime zone more than three times its size with the rights to underwater resources potentially worth trillions of dollars.
    Russia portrayed the takeover as reclamation of its rightful territory, drawing no attention to theoil and gas rush that had recently been heating up in the Black Sea. But the move also extended Russia’s maritime boundaries, quietly giving Russia dominion over vast oil and gas reserves while dealing a crippling blow to Ukraine’s hopes for energy independence.
    Russia did so under an international accord that gives nations sovereignty over areas up to 230 miles from their shorelines. It had tried, unsuccessfully, to gain access to energy resources in the same territory in a pact with Ukraine less than two years earlier.
    “It’s a big deal,” said Carol R. Saivetz, a Eurasian expert in the Security Studies Program of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It deprives Ukraine of the possibility of developing these resources and gives them to Russia. It makes Ukraine more vulnerable to Russian pressure.”
    Gilles Lericolais, the director of European and international affairs at France’s state oceanographic group, called Russia’s annexation of Crimea “so obvious” as a play for offshore riches.
    In Moscow, a spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin said there was “no connection” between the annexation and energy resources, adding that Russia did not even care about the oil and gas. “Compared to all the potential Russia has got, there was no interest there,” the spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Saturday.
    Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and other major oil companies have already explored the Black Sea, and some petroleum analysts say its potential may rival that of the North Sea. That rush, which began in the 1970s, lifted the economies of Britain, Norway and other European countries.
    William B. F. Ryan, a marine geologist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, said Russia’s Black Sea acquisition gave it what are potentially “the best” of that body’s deep oil reserves.
    Continue reading the main story

    Redividing the Black Sea

    Russia’s annexation of Crimea also gives Russia control of a large swath of the Black Sea, including deep oil reserves.
    BEFORE ANNEXATION
    UKRAINE
    Sea of
    Azov
    RUSSIA
    CRIMEA
    ROMANIA
    Sea claimed
    by Ukraine
    Sea claimed
    by Russia
    BULGARIA
    GEORGIA
    Black Sea
    TURKEY
    AFTER ANNEXATION
    UKRAINE
    RUSSIA
    CRIMEA
    New claim
    by Russia
    100 MILES
    Source: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
    Oil analysts said that mounting economic sanctions could slow Russia’s exploitation of its Black and Azov Sea annexations by reducing access to Western financing and technology. But they noted that Russia had already taken over the Crimean arm of Ukraine’s national gas company, instantly giving Russia exploratory gear on the Black Sea.
    “Russia’s in a mood to behave aggressively,” said Vladimir Socor, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a research group in Washington that follows Eurasian affairs. “It’s already seized two drilling rigs.”
    The global hunt for fossil fuels has increasingly gone offshore, to places like the Atlantic Ocean off Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico and the South China Sea. Hundreds of oil rigs dot the Caspian, a few hundred miles east of the Black Sea.
    Nations divide up the world’s potentially lucrative waters according to guidelines set forth by the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty. The agreement lets coastal nations claim what are known as exclusive economic zones that can extend up to 200 nautical miles (or 230 statute miles) from their shores. Inside these zones, countries can explore, exploit, conserve and manage deep natural resources, living and nonliving.
    The countries with shores along the Black Sea have long seen its floor as a potential energy source, mainly because of modest oil successes in shallow waters.

    Just over two years ago, the prospects for huge payoffs soared when a giant ship drilling through deep bedrock off Romania found a large gas field in waters more than half a mile deep.

    Russia moved fast.

    In April 2012, Mr. Putin, then Russia’s prime minister, presided over the signing of an accord with Eni, the Italian energy giant, to explore Russia’s economic zone in the northeastern Black Sea. Dr. Ryan of Columbia estimated that the size of the zone before the Crimean annexation was roughly 26,000 square miles, about the size of Lithuania.
    “I want to assure you that the Russian government will do everything to support projects of this kind,” Mr. Putin said at the signing, according to Russia’s Interfax news agency.
    A month later, oil exploration specialists at a European petroleum conference made a lengthy presentation, the title of which asked: “Is the Black Sea the Next North Sea?” The paper cited geological studies that judged the waters off Ukraine as having “tremendous exploration potential” but saw the Russian zone as less attractive.
    In August 2012, Ukraine announced an accord with an Exxon-led group to extract oil and gas from the depths of Ukraine’s Black Sea waters. The Exxon team had outbid Lukoil, a Russian company. Ukraine’s state geology bureau said development of the field would cost up to $12 billion.

    “The Black Sea Hots Up,” read a 2013 headline in GEO ExPro, an industry magazine published in Britain. “Elevated levels of activity have become apparent throughout the Black Sea region,” the article said, “particularly in deepwater.”
    When Russia seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine on March 18, it issued a treaty of annexation between the newly declared Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation. Buried in the document — in Article 4, Section 3 — a single bland sentence said international law would govern the drawing of boundaries through the adjacent Black and Azov Seas.
    Dr. Ryan estimates that the newly claimed maritime zone around Crimea added about 36,000 square miles to Russia’s existing holdings. The addition is more than three times the size of the Crimean landmass, and about the size of Maine.
    At the time, few observers noted Russia’s annexation of Crimea in those terms. An exception was Romania, whose Black Sea zone had been adjacent to Ukraine’s before Russia stepped in.

    “Romania and Russia will be neighbors,” Romania Libera, a newspaper in Bucharest, observed on March 24. The article’s headline said the new maritime border could become a “potential source of conflict.”
    Many nations have challenged Russia’s seizing of Crimea and thus the legality of its Black and Azov Sea claims. But the Romanian newspaper quoted analysts as judging that the other countries bordering the Black Sea — Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania — would tacitly recognize the annexation “in order to avoid an open conflict.”
    Most immediately, analysts say, Russia’s seizing may alter the route along which the South Stream pipeline would be built, saving Russia money, time and engineering challenges. The planned pipeline, meant to run through the deepest parts of the Black Sea, is to pump Russian gas to Europe.
    Originally, to avoid Ukraine’s maritime zone, Russia drew the route for the costly pipeline in a circuitous jog southward through Turkey’s waters. But now it can take a far more direct path through its newly acquired Black Sea territory, if the project moves forward. The Ukraine crisis has thrown its future into doubt.
    As for oil extraction in the newly claimed maritime zones, companies say their old deals with Ukraine are in limbo, and analysts say new contracts are unlikely to be signed anytime soon, given the continuing turmoil in the region and the United States’ efforts to ratchet up pressure on Russia.

    “There are huge issues at stake,” noted Dr. Saivetz of M.I.T. “I can’t see them jumping into new deals right now.”
    The United States is using its wherewithal to block Russian moves in the maritime zones. Last month, it imposed trade restrictions on Chernomorneftegaz, the breakaway Crimean arm of Ukraine’s national gas company.
    Eric L. Hirschhorn, the United States under secretary of commerce for industry and security, said sanctions against the Crimean business would send “a strong message” of condemnation for Russia’s “incursion into Ukraine and expropriation of Ukrainian assets.”

    Alexandra Odynova contributed reporting from Moscow.

    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.)

    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.”

    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

    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.


    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.