House lawmakers agreed Thursday on the need for a federal law to set baseline standards for data breach notification, during a House Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee hearing. Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said not even Congress is immune from leaks that expose their passwords and data, and steps should be taken to keep private data secure. Schakowsky said in her opening statement that “Anonymous has hacked into 1,800 email accounts of members of Congress and their staff.” On Wednesday evening the hacktivist group Anonymous posted more than 2,000 email addresses and passwords of House and Senate staffers with a warning for lawmakers to curb National Security Agency spying practices (http://bit.ly/17mF3BF). The link was tweeted by @OpLastResort and said: “We mean it. This is a pivotal moment for America, and we will not tolerate failure. #Congress #Senate #FISA #PRISM.” Schakowsky said data breaches are “clearly a major issue which the private sector has not done enough to address.” She suggested any federal data breach laws provide a strong baseline for data breach notification requirements but “should not weaken strong state laws.” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, also endorsed a federal “baseline” bill to govern data breach notification rules. “It would appear to be obvious that we need a federal bill and not a patchwork of state bills,” he said. “This is an issue that we all have general agreement on ... it is not a partisan issue,” said Barton. House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said “after-the-fact breach notification is only half of what is needed. The private sector needs to take steps to proactively secure private information.”

Google Search saw an increase in cost-per-click (CPCs) and impressions and a decrease in click-through rate between the first and second quarter of 2013, said a report from online marketing firm The Search Agency (http://bit.ly/1bM2Xde). The increase in CPCs -- what it costs an advertiser to get its ad clicked -- was consistent across computers, tablets and mobile devices, but tablets saw the highest increase at 26% between the first and second quarter, the release said. Across all search engines, impressions increased 20 percent and overall spending increased 9.7 percent quarter-to-quarter, the release said.

Time Warner Cable could ward off a takeover by Charter Communications by making a defensive acquisition of another company, such as Cox Communications, said Moody’s Investors Service in a report released Thursday. A takeover of Cox would allow Time Warner Cable “to keep its investment-grade rating and fend off a John Malone-led leveraged takeover by Charter,” and give the combined company more than 16 million subscribers, Moody’s said. “An investment-grade rating is key to ensuring consistent and efficient market access for a company with around $27 billion of debt, and to keep it TWC may need to make the first move by becoming an acquirer itself,” said Moody’s Senior Vice President Neil Begley in a release. The transaction would also benefit Cox, he said. “Like other midsized companies, Cox Communications is likely to face issues of scale in the future, and won’t want to be left behind in the race to develop and invest in advanced technology.” Moody’s said Cablevision would also be a possible target for a defensive takeover by Time Warner Cable. “But such a transaction could be problematic as the family that controls Cablevision would likely prefer a stock deal over cash,” and they might “take a more aggressive role in the combined entity’s governance,” Moody’s said. In a third scenario, Charter could leave Time Warner Cable alone because the takeover would require “significant debt financing,” Moody’s said. “In that event, TWC would keep its investment-grade rating, leaving bondholders to gamble that Mr. Malone will keep his distance in the future.”

Negotiations to expand the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) in Geneva were suspended Wednesday because of China’s reluctance to cut duties, said U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman. “A diverse group of Members participating in the negotiations” decided China’s current position made further progress impossible, he said. “We are hopeful that China will carefully consider the concerns it heard this week from many of its negotiating partners, and revise its position in a way that will allow the prompt resumption of the negotiations.” CEA Vice President-International Trade Sage Chandler said the ITA, not updated since its creation, could remove tariffs on an “estimated additional $800 billion in information and communication technology trade globally” if expanded. He said the expansion to include modern technology products is “vital,” and the World Trade Organization said the ITA’s expanded coverage “should reflect the realities of today’s trade.” CEA said China asked for the removal of more than 100 products from negotiations, which “cannot be viewed as a meaningful effort.” Chandler said the list of products that China wishes to exclude from lower tariffs should be “serious but limited,” saying “reciprocal treatment is required” for participation in negotiations. CEA said no date to resume discussions has been announced and urged negotiations to conclude no later than the Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference in December.

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), on behalf of a coalition of Internet companies and nonprofit organizations, sent a letter Thursday to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and members of Congress urging more transparency for national security-related requests by the U.S. government (http://bit.ly/12KaDJL). Apple, Facebook, Google, Mozilla, Twitter and other Internet companies said the U.S. government should regularly report statistics for the number of government requests for information about their users, the number of individuals, accounts or devices and the number of requests for each authority that sought information. The coalition wants a regular “transparency report” by the U.S. government in addition to its annual reporting with “the total number of requests under specific authorities for specific types of data, and the number of individuals affected by each.” The coalition requested the Department of Justice agree to let Internet, telephone and Web-based providers publish specific numbers on government requests that the national security authorities authorize as an initial step. The coalition urged Congress to pass legislation requiring “comprehensive transparency reporting” by the federal government and to allow companies to do their own transparency reporting without needing to seek permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the government. “Just as the United States has long been an innovator when it comes to the Internet and products and services that rely upon the Internet, so too should it be an innovator when it comes to creating mechanisms to ensure that government is transparent, accountable, and respectful of civil liberties and human rights,” said the letter. It’s co-signed by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Internet Association, New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge and TechFreedom. “Transparency around government surveillance is critical to the Internet economy,” said Kevin Bankston, CDT senior counsel who organized the joint letter, in a statement (http://bit.ly/1bLZU54). “Internet companies responsible for protecting the privacy and security of our communications need to maintain the trust of their users in the U.S. and around the globe. Allowing companies to issue transparency reports that contain basic information about the government’s demands for data will help them do just that.”

Phoenix Center economist George Ford released a paper Thursday countering one from T-Mobile (CD July 16 p10) that challenged a Phoenix Center paper from May. That May report said the FCC should ignore a Department of Justice filing (http://bit.ly/16S6zag) on spectrum aggregation and competition, as the commission develops rules for an incentive auction of broadcast TV spectrum. The T-Mobile paper (http://bit.ly/1aWh013) was written by American University law professor Jonathan Baker and made the case that the FCC should limit the amount any carrier can buy in a particular market. “Recently, T-Mobile (one of the intended beneficiaries of the DOJ’s policy proposal) had its economic expert, Professor Jonathan Baker, file a formal comment on our Equalizing Competition paper in the incentive auction docket at the FCC,” Ford wrote (http://bit.ly/13R8mzb). “After review, it appears that Dr. Baker levies two general criticism of our work. First, Dr. Baker claims that we ’simply assum[e] away’ issues of foreclosure value. Second, Dr. Baker contends that we argue that ‘incremental spectrum should be awarded to the largest firms.’ In both cases, we do no such thing, and for Dr. Baker to argue otherwise is a gross mischaracterization of our paper.” Ford concluded: “Where’s the beef? One cannot help but ask this question after reading Dr. Baker’s or the DOJ’s filings on the upcoming voluntary incentive auction. Excluding or limiting participation of the largest and most spectrum-hungry wireless companies is a big deal. At a minimum, such rules will significantly reduce auction proceeds.” The Phoenix Center felt compelled to respond in a substantial way to the T-Mobile filing, given the importance of the issue, said center President Larry Spiwak in an interview. Competitive Carriers Association President Steve Berry said there were problems with the Phoenix study. “We know who is paying the Phoenix Center,” Berry told us Thursday. “The Department of Justice didn’t have an outside group paying them. They were looking at how do you best distribute and value a taxpayer resource and ensure that it gets to the best, the highest number of people.” Berry said the 700 MHz auction demonstrated that if smaller carriers are active in the incentive auction, it will mean higher prices and better returns for the government. “We do not disclose our funding sources because we would prefer our work to be judged on the merits of the legal and economic analysis contained therein,” Spiwak said in an email. “That said, over the years, the Phoenix Center has received funding from a wide variety of private and public sources, including state governments, the U.S. government, and foreign governments."

The FCC ordered a $9,000 forfeiture for Bruno Goodworth Network over its Weirton, W.Va., TV station WJPW’s failure to electronically file children’s TV reports for 21 quarters, said a forfeiture order released Thursday (http://bit.ly/18qCbZe). The Media Bureau had proposed a fine of $12,000, but the amount was reduced in the order because the “proposed forfeiture amount would cause financial hardship to the station,” the order said. Bruno Goodworth Network had argued that its filing problems were caused by “funding and staff limitations,” but this was “not a mitigating circumstance,” the order said. The station still has the option to avoid the forfeiture by agreeing to revert to low-power status, the order said. The FCC also proposed a total of $27,000 in fines for other TV stations missing deadlines to file children’s programming reports. Media Bureau notices of apparent liability in the cases were released Thursday. ZGS Broadcasting faces a proposed $9,000 penalty because Orlando station WTMO didn’t file on time for seven quarters and didn’t include the violations in its license renewal application (http://bit.ly/15PC7hY). ZGS also faces a proposed $15,000 fine over similar violations by Melbourne, Fla., station WMVJ, which missed filing deadlines for 19 quarters and then failed to report the violations in its renewal application (http://bit.ly/1aUQbLM). Convergence Entertainment faces a proposed $3,000 fine because W17CI in Claremont, N.H., missed filing deadlines and didn’t respond to a letter requesting information about children’s television reports (http://bit.ly/1aUQJRJ).

Verizon and Disney reached agreement to add The Disney Channel, ABC and an upcoming joint offering from ABC and Univision to Verizon’s TV Everywhere service for FiOS customers, Verizon and Disney said in a joint press release Thursday. That will allow Verizon FiOS customers to enter usernames and passwords to view content from ABC, ABC Family, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, and Disney XD using a broadband Internet connection or a variety of mobile apps, the release said. ABC’s TV Everywhere offering, Watch ABC, is currently available in “New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Raleigh-Durham,” and planned for launch in Houston and Fresno in the fall, the release said. Watch ABC includes live streaming of viewers’ local ABC stations and on-demand service, said the release. FiOS customers will also soon be able to watch Fusion, the ABC and Univision channel, set to launch later this year, they said. Fusion will be an English-language “news, information and lifestyle multiplatform network for Hispanics,” they said.

Customers of subscription streaming services are four times more likely to watch TV shows than movies, said a GfK study released Thursday (http://bit.ly/15M3wik). GfK, Germany’s largest market research institute, got more than 500 subscribers of Netflix Watch Instantly, Amazon Instant Video and Hulu Plus to recount their use of streaming video once a day for seven days. Of the 2,300 video segments mentioned, 81 percent were for TV shows and 19 percent for movies, the study found. In terms of total viewing time, TV dominated movies by two to one and the length of movies was offset by the number of TV programs used, said GfK. “We see that, contrary to broadcast TV’s ‘mass’ audience model, streaming services generate episodic, niche viewing -- more broad and unpredictable than even the 200 channels on your cable TV menu,” said David Tice, GfK senior vice president. “These services provide the control and multiplicity of choice that consumers crave, and the result is very individual behavior.”

Four House Democrats sent letters Thursday to top wireless carriers about billing practices they said are “nickel-and-diming consumers to boost revenue.” The lawmakers cited recent reports from The Wall Street Journal, The Denver Post and NBC News that said providers are increasingly including administrative, recovery, or service fees on consumer’s high-speed Internet and telephone bills. “These ‘below-the-line’ fees are generating hundreds of millions of dollars for U.S. communications companies” which may “allow companies to advertise deceptively low rates to the public, only to pile on additional, unexpected fees at the end of the month,” the letters said. The letters were sent to AT&T, AT&T Mobility, CenturyLink, Sprint, T-Mobile US, Verizon Communications and Verizon Wireless. Each company was asked specific questions about how they assess administrative, recovery, service or change fees, what fee information they present to customers at the point of sale, and what notification procedures they offer before new fees appear on consumers’ bills, among other questions. A Sprint spokesman said the company “agrees that transparency and disclosure in the marketplace ensures that consumers are able to accurately compare competing services and choose the provider that best meets their needs. That’s why Sprint fully discloses all surcharges and fees on its customers’ invoices and on Sprint.com.” Spokesmen from Verizon and AT&T said they had received the letter and would respond to the questions asked. The remaining companies had no comment. The letters were authored by House Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo of California, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and Jim Matheson of Utah. Free Press Action Fund Policy Director Matt Wood said: “These hidden and confusing fees can add up to hundreds of dollars a year for people already struggling to afford basic communications services -- and they add up to billions of dollars a year in revenues for the companies.” Public Knowledge Vice President-Government Affairs Christopher Lewis in a news release commended the lawmakers for “asking tough questions that consumers have every month when they are faced with surprise fees on their phone and broadband bills.” “Your monthly bill shouldn’t be a crap shoot. Consumers expect to pay for communication services, but they cannot make informed choices between providers if they are advertised one price and then billed another.” Delara Derakhshani, policy counsel for Consumers Union, said the group looks forward to hearing the companies’ responses, in a separate news release. “Too often, consumers are quoted one price for their service, only to face a higher bill riddled with additional vague or confusing fees,” she said. “Consumers deserve to know exactly what they're paying for. That means being informed of any fees up front, before they receive their first bill.” “Our carriers do an excellent job in disclosing taxes, fees, and other charges to consumers, as they are committed to do under the terms of the CTIA Consumer Code for Wireless Service,” said Jot Carpenter, CTIA vice president-government affairs, in reaction to the letter. “Additionally, it is important for the Members who signed this letter to remember that the industry committed nearly two years ago to deliver usage alerts to customers to inform them when they might be reaching voice, text or data limits, or roaming internationally. By April of this year, each of the carriers that agreed to deliver usage alerts has met its usage alert commitments."