A documentary about the lawsuit that pitted celebrity wrestler Hulk Hogan–whose actual name is Terry Bollea–against news and gossip site Gawker is coming to Netflix.

“Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and Trials of a Free Press,” which premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival, explores the case that awarded Bollea over $140 million in damages, drove Gawker’s founder Nick Denton to file for bankruptcy, and resulted in the site shutting down.

Bollea first filed a defamation suit against Gawker in Florida state court in 2012, after an editor at the site posted a segment of a sex tape Bollea had made with his best friend’s then-wife. Although Bollea had already spoken publicly about the tape and stills from it had been published elsewhere, he testified that Gawker violated his privacy by releasing the video footage. In his testimony, he tried to distinguish between his roles as a private figure and as a public persona.

In March, a jury granted Bollea $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. Gawker filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied in May. Gawker Media subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June, closed Gawker.com in August, and sold its six sister sites to Univision.

It was revealed in May that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, the cofounder of Paypal, had secretly been helping Bollea fund his lawsuit. Thiel had previously condemned Gawker; the site outed him as gay in 2007.

Meanwhile, the case sparked a handful of journalists to speak out against allowing wealthy or powerful individuals to intimidate or cause the decline of publications–particularly when President Donald Trump has said he wants to change libel laws to make suing news organizations easier.

According to Business Insider, the film highlights the threat that billionaires like Thiel pose to the freedom of the press. Director Brian Knappenberger told the news site: “This notion of [Thiel’s] nine-year grudge and this epic tale of revenge was so spectacular.”

Denton and A.J. Daulerio, the former Gawker editor who posted the sex tape clip, as well as Bollea’s lawyer will appear in the film, although Bollea declined to appear.

Bollea v. Gawker, which consistently made headlines since the case began, is sure to make for a fascinating movie.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hulk Hogan v. Gawker: Coming Soon to a Computer Screen Near You appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Police Shooting of 13-Year-Old Tyree King

After reports of an armed robbery, a Columbus, Ohio police offer shot and killed 13-year-old Tyree King after police saw him “retrieve a gun from his waistband.” After the shooting, investigators discovered the gun was actually a BB gun with an attached laser sight.

When police were called to the scene, King and two other individuals were demanding money in a crowd of people. Police attempted to speak to them but King and another suspect ran away into an alley where the fatal shooting occurred.

This is incredibly sad. Still, opinions on the matter have certainly been very mixed:

If I pulled any type of gun on a police officer, I would expect to be shot at. Color doesn’t matter when it comes to safety.#TyreeKing

— Daniel Dovel (@danieldovel) September 15, 2016

People have wasted no time blaming #TyreeKing for his own death. He had a BB gun. He was 13. He didn’t have to die. #BlackLivesMatter

— Sam White (@samwhiteout) September 15, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brown University Provides Free Tampons for all!

Brown University, located in Providence, Rhode Island, has started providing free tampons and pads to its students. The university put pads and tampons in the women’s, men’s, and gender neutral bathrooms on campus, indicating that they’re a necessity, not a luxury item.

But the fact that the sanitary products were placed in men’s bathrooms has, of course, led some people to get their panties in a wad over trans bathroom access…again. For example, Daily Caller writer Blake Neff stated:

The decision reflects the view, embraced by Brown’s student government, that not all who menstruate are women. After all, a biological woman could declare herself to be man and start using the men’s restroom, while continuing to menstruate like usual.

But let’s just ignore the haters and embrace the good news here–this is a really cool thing for Brown University to do.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Couple Abandons Child To Play Stupid Pokemon Catching Game

If this isn’t the epitome of first world problems, I don’t know what is. A young couple from Arizona allegedly left their 2-year-old son home alone to go catch Pokemon. After a neighbor alerted police, officials found the child outside barefoot, red-faced, and sweaty (it’s Arizona). When deputies contacted the child’s father, Brent Daley, to let him know they had found his son, he curtly replied “Whatever” and hung up the phone.

(Me right now.)

via GIPHY

When the couple finally got home after an hour or so, they admitted to leaving their child to play the world’s most popular new game. Is PokemonGo the problem or are these people maybe just really, really bad parents?

Arizona couple accused of abandoning toddler to play ‘Pokemon Go’ https://t.co/uQVU1mxl0spic.twitter.com/VkAVkRJlsK

— CP24 (@CP24) August 2, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

When news came out that Netflix was spearheading a “Gilmore Girls” revival, fans (including myself) rejoiced. However not everyone was as happy. Gavin Polone, the original producer of the popular early 2000s dramedy, is suing Warner Bros. to get compensation for the new episodes of the show.

Netflix is planning four installments of long episodes/movies–around 90 minutes–that includes many members of the original cast, including Lauren Graham, Alexis Bledel, Kelly Bishop, Scott Patterson, and Melissa McCarthy, as well as the original writer/director Amy Sherman-Palladino. The show, which ended in 2007, explored the lives of a single mother, her daughter, parents, family and friends in bucolic Connecticut.

As of right now, the release date for the new installment of “Gilmore Girls” has not been determined, but the show’s revival has already garnered heavy news coverage. As various former cast members have signed on, there has been rampant speculation about what the plot will be, and photos from the set were recently released.

In a suit filed late last week in Los Angeles, Polone claims that the contract he had with Warner Bros. entitles him to $32,500 per episode created after 2003, and some of the money gleaned from the episode, as well as an executive producer credit. All said and done, Polone argues he’s owed just under $200,000. According to Polone’s lawsuit, Warner Bros. obviously disagrees:

Defendant refuses to compensate plaintiff in any way for the Subsequent Episodes of Gilmore Girls. Defendant argues that the Subsequent Episodes do not fall under the terms of the Operative Agreement, making the absurd claim that the Subsequent Episodes are derivative works based on the television series Gilmore Girls. Defendant also appears to erroneously believe the Subsequent Episodes are not considered a ‘television series’ because they are being produced for Netflix, rather than a traditional broadcast network.

As of right now, Warner Bros. has not released a comment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Producer Gavin Polone Sues Warner Bros. Over “Gilmore Girls” Revival appeared first on Law Street.

Netflix is a behemoth in the entertainment world, beloved by its 75 million paying subscribers. During a recent presentation, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings announced that the service is now truly international, as Netflix’s streaming platform is available in over 200 countries, not including the ever-obstinate China. But it’s not all good news–during the same presentation, Hastings mentioned subscribers’ use of VPNs when streaming Netflix, adding that Netflix would soon begin blocking users from accessing Netflix through a VPN.

VPN stands for Virtual Private Network, and in order to understand what a VPN is, let’s take a look at its most common use: in business, a company might have an ‘intranet,’ which is a network that doesn’t connect to the outside world, but links together all of that company’s servers and computers. An employee working from home or abroad could use a VPN to connect to that private network, and browse through the files as if they were physically there.

Now picture that instead of accessing a business’s intranet, you’re connected to someone else’s internet. This would mean you can browse the web from the geographical point of view of another person. That’s where Netflix users see an opportunity: because much of Netflix’s expansive catalog is locked to specific regions, a user in the U.K. could ‘pretend’ to be in Tennessee, and catch up on a U.S. exclusive show.

Why does Netflix geo-block some of its content? And why do they care if users circumvent those blocks? Netflix gets distribution rights to its content through agreements with content owners. These agreements have limitations to make them affordable for Netflix, which might include limiting how long the content is available online, how many seasons or episodes of a show will be streamed, and where it is allowed to stream. A content owner might have an existing agreement to exclusive streaming rights with a service provider in the EU, and so they can only offer their show to Netflix for streaming in the U.S.

Netflix is now acting on its promise, and users worldwide are finding that their visits to Netflix are blocked if they have an active VPN. Many subscribers are angry because their Netflix selections are narrowed down to their country’s content, while the majority of subscribers who don’t use VPNs will experience no change.

It’s hard to blame Netflix for accommodating the requirements set by the content owners. This may be part of the reason Netflix has been accelerating production of Netflix Originals, which it retains full control of, and can stream worldwide without the permission of others. But there is also a reason that Netflix users feel entitled to a broader selection of content–physical boundaries for online content feels antiquated in an increasingly globalized world. It’s reminiscent of the irksome region-locked DVDs we used to struggle with. If I can Facetime a friend in Germany and show her a Youtube video over the air, how do region-locks on the world wide web make sense? We can hope that Netflix pressures content owners to be less restrictive when cutting deals, but until then, subscribers in the U.S. will have to go without streaming “22 Jump Street.”

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everyone Panic: Netflix is Actually Blocking VPNs Now appeared first on Law Street.

Netflix’s latest original documentary series “Making a Murderer,” follows Steven Avery: a supposedly wrongfully convicted man who spent 18 years in prison on a rape charge. He was exonerated based on DNA evidence, only to be found guilty, two years later, of rape and murder in another trial. But the series also revealed the complicated interrogation process of a intellectually disabled minor when police arrested Brendan Dassey, Steven Avery’s nephew, as an accomplice to sexual assault and murder. Dassey was a minor at the time of questioning and his IQ neared the range of intellectual disability; two factors garnering extra limitations to police during interrogations. Yet during law enforcement’s four hour interrogation of Brendan, no guardian or lawyer was present. Warning: there are spoilers ahead.

This interrogation was deeply problematic: a study published in The University of Chicago Law Review’s 2002 spring issue found that, when compared to non-handicapped persons, intellectually disabled individuals often did not understand their Miranda rights. Many also didn’t necessarily understand the context of an interrogation or the consequences of confessing to a crime. That last part applies to Dassey, who does not appear to understand the consequences of his words during his interrogation. For example, he asks a detective what time he will be returning to school after confessing that he assisted Steven Avery in the sexual assault and murder of Teresa Halbach, something mentally competent persons (as defined legally) should know would lead to their arrest.

When Dassey is at last allowed to speak to his mother, in private, he tells her he did not commit the crimes he confessed to. “They got to my head,” he tells his mother. While their conversation was recorded, it was not shown in Dassey’s trial. The prosecution only played his confession.

The problems don’t stop there–the recorded interrogation shows the police asking leading questions, not allowing Brendan to make original utterances. At the time of questioning, only the police knew the murder victim had been shot in the head. Detectives wait for Brendan to confess this fact as it would prove his guilt. Dassey never offers this information so the police directly ask him who shot the victim in the head. Specific questions like these can contaminate a confession and make it impossible to prove the validity of a suspect’s statement.

It is alarming to see allegedly coerced confessions because it means our justice system has a margin of error wide enough for innocent people to be convicted of murder. And it’s frightening to see detectives work to prove what they believe happened rather than uncovering the truth of a crime. If it happened to one person, it can happen to anyone. Maybe that’s one of the reasons that programs like “Making a Murderer” and “Serial” have become so compelling.

Watch an excerpt of the interrogation from the series below:

Unfortunately, Brendan Dassey is still in jail awaiting the court’s decision on his appeal for a new trial–who knows if he’ll get a second chance at justice.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Making a Confession: Police Interrogations and the Intellectually Disabled appeared first on Law Street.

It’s getting closer and closer to Halloween, and for many that means costumes, candy comas, and scary movies. However this year there are some that clearly can’t handle the latter. Case in point, last week a New Mexico man who had been drunkenly binge-watching “The Walking Dead” on Netflix beat his friend to death with a microwave and an electric guitar after becoming convinced that he was turning into a zombie.

Man binge watching “The Walking Dead” allegedly killed friend he thought was a zombie https://t.co/Owbs8jAQKJ pic.twitter.com/qT8N6R9GOS

— BuzzFeed UK (@BuzzFeedUK) October 27, 2015

According to the Associated Press,

Grants police spokesman Moses Marquez said Sunday that 23-year-old Christopher Paquin was beaten and that 23-year-old Damon Perry is being held on a murder charge. Police say Perry beat Paquin with his hands, feet, an electric guitar and a microwave.

Really, a microwave?

Authorities were called to the apartment complex after Perry’s neighbors phoned 911 to report that a man was running around the complex threatening people with a knife. When they arrived, they found two maintenance workers had pinned Perry to the ground and discovered Paquin’s body inside an apartment with signs of trauma. He was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics.

Grants, New Mexico police department spokesman Moses Marquez told the Daily Beast, “It was one of the absolute worst [crime scenes] I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been with the department for 15 years.”

According to police reports, Perry told officers that he had been drinking multiple 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor when Paquin began “to change into a zombie” and tried to bite him. That’s when he began to beat him to death with random household items. Currently Perry is being held in police custody, but his lawyer has yet to comment publicly on the charges.

I’ll just go ahead and say it: this is absolutely crazy. Who kills their “friend” because they watched too much TV and believed they were morphing into a fictional creature? There’s a reason it’s called Netflix and chill, and not Netflix and kill. The entire thing is an incredibly weird and tragic story–it’s hopeful that Perry gets the help he needs.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Binge-Watching Netflix Led Man to Murder his “Zombie” Friend appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Netflix announced an upgrade to its parental leave policy that will allow employees to take unlimited maternity and paternity leave during the first year of their child’s life or after an adoption.

During that first year, Netflix employees will be able to take off for however long they feel they need to. They can return on a full or part time basis, and even take subsequent time off later in the year if needed. Netflix has decide that this will be a paid leave, to avoid the hassle of having to switch to disability leave.

Tawni Cranz, Netflix’s Chief Talent Officer, in a statement, said:

We want employees to have the flexibility and confidence to balance the needs of their growing families without worrying about work or finances.

This new policy, combined with our unlimited time off, allows employees to be supported during the changes in their lives and return to work more focused and dedicated.

The company already offers an unlimited time off policy.”Experience shows people perform better at work when they’re not worrying about home,” said Cranz. 

This policy exceeds typical leave at corporations in the United States, where there are very few federal policies aimed at working parents. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 provides employees at companies of  a certain size 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Because the Act only requires companies to provide employees with protected unpaid leave, many companies do not provide paid leave. In the past year, Netflix has made a number of changes that have benefited both their customers and employees. Cranz said in a blog post on the company’s website:

Netflix’s continued success hinges on us competing for and keeping the most talented individuals in their field.

Tech companies in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco, however, have often been among the most progressive when it comes to paid family leave. Twitter offers up to twenty weeks of paid maternity and ten weeks of paid paternity leave. Facebook offers four months of paid leave for both mothers and fathers, as well as $4,000 for each newborn and adopted child. It also subsidizes daycare and programs for adoption, egg freezing, or surrogate parenting and sperm donation programs. Google extended its paid maternity leave to 18 weeks from 12 weeks in 2007. After the extension, the company found that returning mothers left Google at half the rate they previously had, said Roya Soleimani, a company spokeswoman. New parents, regardless of gender, “who plan to take an equal or primary role in their child’s care during the first year can receive up to 12 weeks of paid baby bonding time, including adoptive/surrogate caregivers,” she said.

Netflix’s unlimited parental leave is the latest perk created for employees of big name tech companies as they push to attract the best talent. Among some of the perks enjoyed by employees include free meals, massages, and laundry services. The day Netflix made its announcement, the company’s shares rose to a new high, at $122.79. It seems Americans recognize the need for smart policies to attract the top talent. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Netflix Announces Game-Changing Parental Leave Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Picture your Netflix homescreen. Besides some errant selections courtesy of your (ahem, tasteless) roommate, it’s pretty much a haven of your unique preferences. Like a doting butler, it recommends you watch “Breaking Bad” since you enthusiastically plowed through every episode of “Orange is the New Black.” Netflix knows you. Or think about Amazon. It’s your data-powered best friend. It recalls your purchase history and movie preferences better than you do. So what if this data-powered framework for knowing you is applied to healthcare? What if your doctor knows you as well as Netflix?

That’s what the Precision Medicine Initiative aims to do–unleash the full power of science and data to make our healthcare system better, more effective, and more specific to individuals and conditions. The new model proposes a system of health care that treats you like the complex human being you are. Just as Amazon cares deeply about your past purchase behavior, the new healthcare system would care about the science-based reasons you’re you: your genes, your lifestyle, and your environment. Instead of pushing purchases, it would use what it knows about you to determine what treatments and preventions work best for your health.

President Barack Obama announced the Precision Medicine Initiative during his 2015 State of the Union Address and since then people have been discussing the pros, cons, and implications. Here’s an overview of precision medicine and what it means for you.

What is precision medicine?

Take a look at the video below for a summary of precision medicine from Jo Handelsman, Associate Director for Science at the White House.

Precision medicine revolves around you. It uses your genes, environment, and lifestyle to determine what treatments keep you healthy.

The Precision Medicine Initiative may be new, but precision medicine has some history. Doctors already use it to treat conditions like cancer and Cystic Fibrosis. Examples of precision medicine in action include processes like blood typing and medications like Imatinib (Gleevec), a drug for Leukemia that inhibits an enzyme produced by certain genes. The new initiative plans to expand the reach of precision medicine to to tackle other diseases.

The plan stems from a  2011 report from the National Academy of Sciences. The report called out a major healthcare weakness: data suggests possible causes of deadly diseases, yet we don’t treat people until telltale signs and symptoms surface. You don’t wait until your friend’s liver is wrecked to stage an alcoholism intervention. Why wait for symptoms of a deadly disease when early risk factors might be available?

Great idea in theory, right? Of course, the execution promises far more complexity. Experts hope that precision medicine is within our grasp now because of recent scientific advances that make it easier to collect and analyze patient data.

Advances That Make Precision Medicine Possible

Advancement 1: New Methods of Uncovering Biological Data

It’s easier to understand patients and tumors on a cellular and genetic level more than ever before because of things like:

• The Human Genome Project, an initiative that aims to map the DNA sequence of the human genome to determine a sort of biological instruction manual for how humans function. The study of the genome is called genomics.
• Proteomics, a discipline that involves studying proteomes, the entire system of proteins in an organism. The goal is understanding changes, variations, and modifications in proteins over time to determine biomarkers for human diseases, especially cancer.
• Metabolomics, a field that leverages analytical tools to discover and quantify metabolites, which are substances produced by metabolism. Studying them provides experts with a glimpse of an organism’s physiological functioning as metabolism is a huge factor in overall health.

Advancement 2: New Tools For Biomedical Analysis

New analytic tools make it possible to decipher the intricate medical data collected by the disciplines above. Computers and programs help to collect, store, and study biological and medical information. Overall, the discipline is called bioinformatics.

Advancement 3: New Digital Health Tools That Make Large Datasets Manageable

I said large data sets. Sound familiar? Yes, we’re talking Big Data. You’ve probably heard enough about it, but it’s actually an amazing thing, especially when applied to healthcare. Take a look at the video below for more information.

From collecting to analyzing, sophisticated data management tools make the Precision Medicine Initiative possible.

Collectively, these advances create the right environment for the unified national effort that the Precision Medicine Initiative proposes.

How will it work?

The President’s 2016 Budget provides $215 million for the program. Four key agencies slated to do a bulk of the work each get a chunk of the budget.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Project Budget: $130 million.

Task: Recruit a volunteer research cohort and leverage existing data.

The National Institutes of Health must find 1 million American volunteers willing to provide medical records, gene profiles, lifestyle data, and more. While data drives the initiative, you need people to get the data. In addition to this, the NIH will find existing studies and research to build a foundation for the initiative. It’ll collaborate with stakeholders to determine approaches for collecting patient information.

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Budget: $70 million.

Task: Find better cancer treatments.

The National Cancer Institute will explore precision treatments for cancer by increasing genetically based cancer trials, researching cancer biology, and establishing a “cancer knowledge network” to inform treatment decisions.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Budget: $10 million.

Task: Develop safe, new DNA tests.

The Food and Drug Administration will seek technologies that rapidly sequence DNA and the human genome. Tests should make genetic data collection easier and more standardized.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)

Budget: $5 million.

Task: Manage the data.

The ONC has a tough job. It needs to figure out how to store, use, access, and exchange all of this medical data without any privacy concerns.

What Precision Medicine Could Mean For You

Here’s Notre Dame’s video on precision medicine in action:

Precision medicine could mean treatments more specific to you. For example, about 55-65 percent of women with mutations in the BRCA1 gene get Breast Cancer; only 12 percent of those without the gene get it. If the gene mutation is discovered, doctors can recommend enhanced prevention measures like increased cancer screenings or prophylactic surgery to remove at-risk tissue.

We hope more precise treatments lead to better outcomes. Using precision medicine, we hope to answer many questions, including:

• How can we treat this better?
• Is there a cure?
• Why does this disease happen in the first place?

The Downsides to Precision Medicine

Of course, the Precision Medicine Initiative has some drawbacks. The sheer amount of time it will take to collect and analyze all of this patient data leads the charge of negative comments. Below are some other downsides.

Interpretability

This article from the New Yorker calls out the problem of interpretability. To quote the author,l Cynthia Graber,

Many doctors are simply not qualified to make sense of genetic tests, or to communicate the results accurately to their patients.

Since doctors will be the sole executors of the initiative, more need to become fluent in the human genetic code. Programs like MedSeq have recognized this need and are already working to make genetic information translatable for practitioners.

The Budget Just Isn’t Enough

Experts say that even the $215 million proposed isn’t enough to meet the initiative’s lofty goals, like recruiting one million patient volunteers. One upside? Money can be saved by incorporating existing data, which the initiative plans to do.

Collecting the Data is Going to be Hard (This is an Understatement) 

If they do save money by integrating data from different studies, keeping the data clean will be hard considering the different time frames, constructs, and controls of various studies.

And as a practicing doctor writing for a New York Times blog points out, the lifestyle factors will be especially hard to study because of some uncooperative and intensely complex patients.

Insurance Companies May Not Pay For It

Precise matching of individuals to disease treatments sounds great, and extremely expensive, especially in the early days. Patients will need even more help determining what treatments suit them.

Hope For the Future

Sorry to bring up Netflix up again, but let’s face it, it’s very good at leveraging data to give you what you want. Consider any of its popular original series. Do you think Netflix just guessed what 50 million subscribers would like? Probably not. It used its massive stores of data to make informed decisions.

Early doctors and researchers puzzled over the symptoms of just a few patients, trying to find patterns, causes, and cures. While they did a fair job with the resources they had, trial and error medicine should be relegated to the less fortunate past. Today we have the power and knowledge to access data that helps doctors make more informed decisions on healthcare treatments.

Precision medicine will be complicated, difficult, time consuming, and who knows what else. But imagine what we can learn. We should be cautious, but we can also dare to hope.

Resources

Primary

White House: Infographic: The Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: FACT SHEET: President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: Precision Medicine is Already Working to Cure Americans: These Are Their Stories

National Cancer Institute: BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

National Cancer Institute: What is Cancer Proteomics?

Additional

Nature: Obama to Seek $215 Million for Precision-Medicine Plan

New England Journal of Medicine: A New Initiative on Precision Medicine

National Academies: Toward Precision Medicine

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

Nature: U.S. Precision-Medicine Proposal Sparks Questions

Brookings Institution: The Significance of President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

New Yorker: The Problem With Precision Medicine

The New York Times: A Path For Precision Medicine

National Human Genome Research Institute: What is the Human Genome Project?

BioTechniques: What is Metabolomics All About?

Bioplanet: What is Bioinformatics?

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Precision Medicine: The Future of Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Since finishing college last May, I’ve noticed a post-grad trend of 20-somethings chucking away their TV remotes in favor of online streaming sites such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. Some are just being cheap (can we say student loans) while others simply don’t feel compelled to have both traditional cable and online options. The truth is, millennials just don’t need cable, and new Nielsen figures agree. However, the move away from traditional TV viewing opens the door for innovation, and sometimes, legal battles over those new inventions.

This news shouldn’t be surprising–people have begun to rely more and more heavily on the web for fast and easy news consumption so why not make it a one stop shop for all entertainment? According to the New York Post:

Traditional TV usage — which has been falling among viewers ages 18 to 34 at around 4 percent a year since 2012 — tumbled 10.6 percent between September and January.

This means that there are a lot fewer young adults watching their flat-screens for primetime than four years ago. Surprisingly, only four years ago 21.7 million young people were using cable, but by the end of last month, that figure had fallen to 17.8 million, according to Nielsen counts. As baby boomers age so does cable’s prime demographic, with the median age of the TV audience hitting 50 this year, just north of the traditional target range of 18-49.

In an effort to adapt to the conversion from cable to online, networks have begun to introduce live streaming to their sites, similar to the way HBO launched it’s highly successful extension HBO Go. NBC is the latest company to make the leap. Soon they will be issuing an update for their channel’s iOS and Android apps that will introduce live mobile streaming, although according to The Verge, this will require users to log in with credentials from their TV provider and will only be available in markets where NBC owns the local station.

However, not all streaming sites have proved successful. New York based tech company Aereo took a turn for the worse when the online streaming startup filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, just months after shutting down operations after facing an arduous Supreme Court battle.

Aereo’s unique approach didn’t sit well with networks. They assigned their users mini broadcast TV antennas that transmitted broadcast signals to individual subscribers, allowing them to avoid paying retransmission fees for broadcasters’ content. Feeling cheated, broadcasters objected to the convenient loophole by filing lawsuits, and the Supreme Court agreed that what Aereo was doing was wrong.

Options like these, even if not all pan out, are extremely enticing for consumers looking to differentiate from the norm and save a couple bucks. I myself have thought about saying goodbye to DVR and making the switch to online, but that lack of universal live streaming options for every network is the only thing holding me back. Under the current model, waiting a day or two for a network to upload the show you want to watch online is often the norm, but ultimately it’s a small price to pay as long as you don’t plan on live tweeting and can stay away from online spoilers (I can avoid neither). With the help of initiatives like NBC’s, that may not be a problem for long.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Millennials Don’t Need Cable: The New Ways We Watch TV appeared first on Law Street.

Bill Cosby has, to many, gained the sort of “elder statesman” distinction in the acting world. For all intents and purposes, things were going well for him this year. He signed up to do a new show on NBC and announced a Netflix standup special. Then a comedian named Hannibal Buress did a bit in which he accused Cosby of being a rapist.

Buress was of course not the first person to accuse Cosby of rape. In fact, many of his alleged victims had come forward over the years, starting roughly a decade ago. But because of Cosby’s celebrity status, the allegations had never really stuck. Buress’ point in the video is dead right–many people continue to defend Cosby because of his role in American consciousness as “America’s dad,” or just think that the many, many young women who have come forward with rape allegations are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. In fact, it took another man–Buress–repeating those allegations to even make it into national news.

That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. More and more women are coming forward with their stories–and they all sound pretty similar. Similar enough to make it clear that Cosby used the same M.O. with these women.

These women are finally widely getting support…mostly. Of course, this is America, so we still have a nicely cultivated culture of treating rape victims like shit. I found all of the tweets below by searching “Cosby” on Twitter. It only took me about five minutes. This is why women don’t go forward, and why it’s so essential to stand by the women who have. Because when you come forward you become a walking target for all of this.

Victim Blaming

Maybe women who don't want Bill Cosby's pudding pop in their vajayjays shouldn't be doing drugs naked in his hotel room. Just a thought.

— Todd Kincannon (@Todd__Kincannon) November 20, 2014

Mr. Kincannon, doing drugs does not mean you consent to sexual activity. Furthermore, there is significant evidence that Cosby roofied or drugged at least some of these women. A man who doesn’t want to type out the word “vagina” shouldn’t be commenting on matters that require maturity and thoughtfulness, anyway.

Accusations of fame-seeking

I don't believe Bill Cosby'd rape anyone. My hunch is these women are trying to link their names w/ a consistently successful entertainer.

— R. Deniston (@Obolerfan) November 20, 2014

Most of Bill Cosby's victims refuse to even go to the press, please tell me how all these women are just lying for fame?

— Kill Darren Wilson (@kim_tastiic) November 19, 2014

That’s why so many people have gotten famous through rape allegations. Really, it’s pretty much the way to get discovered now, along with America’s Got Talent and posting videos on YouTube. Never mind that some of these women–such as Janice Dickinson–are pretty well-known and wealthy in their own rights.

There have been a whole bunch of speculative pieces written about how we’ve all been able to ignore these rape allegations for so long. The most convincing argument I’ve heard is that Cosby isn’t the first powerful man, the first powerful cultural figure to face a case like this. Woody Allen and Jerry Sandusky are both good examples. People ignore the allegations out of a mixture of distrust of the victims and respect for the accused.

For those of you who still don’t believe that rape culture exists, well that’s it right there. Rape culture is a well-respected man being given a pass because it’s inconvenient and upsetting to take his 15-plus victims seriously.

Now, Netflix has postponed the standup special, NBC has cancelled the possible sitcom project, and TV Land has stopped showing reruns of the Cosby show. They probably shouldn’t be applauded too much–I highly doubt that any of the networks are doing this because they are convinced that Cosby is a rapist, but rather because they don’t want the bad publicity. And that’s one more good example of rape culture right there–when a woman comes forward with her story of being sexually assaulted, she’s accused of doing it for publicity’s sake; when networks pull the projects of rapists, they get applause.

Things are getting better in the United States. Our attitudes toward rape and sexual assault are changing, bit by incremental bit. But rape culture is still alive and well–just ask Bill Cosby.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby Allegations: A Striking Example of Rape Culture appeared first on Law Street.

A close friend of mine passed away last weekend. My dear friend, Saturday Morning Cartoons, whom I will never forget, was murdered by a group of assassins headed up by cable and streaming video. Perhaps I should have seen it coming. The final life support system of Saturday Morning Cartoons, the CW television station, was finally terminated. The CW decided to invest elsewhere, replacing Saturday Morning Cartoons with a program called “One Magnificent Morning.” Not such a magnificent morning, I think.

So good job, television, you have officially killed childhood. Yes, I concede that kids still have options to get their fix. With Hulu, Netflix, and other methods of streaming shows, it could be argued that they have even MORE options. Some might say that cartoon viewing is only ENHANCED by the ability of children to choose what they want to watch on Sunday morning. I still feel strongly, however, that ending the block of programming we knew and loved known as “Saturday Morning Cartoons” signifies the end of an era.

Before being able to watch whatever we want whenever we want to, there was a little bit more patience and excitement involved. Perhaps this is a stretch, but Saturday Morning Cartoons taught some pertinent life lessons. Because they can decide not just which show they want to watch but which specific episode of that show, kids will no longer learn to expect the unexpected. Life is not always under our control. We cannot determine our lives with the touch of a button on a remote. Saturday morning cartoons kept alive the beautiful air of mystery that is present in real life. What shenanigans are Scooby and the gang going to get into this Saturday? I don’t know. Let’s grab a bowl of Reese’s Puffs and park it in front of the TV to find out. What adventures are Patrick and Spongebob going to have tomorrow morning? Who knows! Let’s enjoy the first part of our weekend by finding out.

No, now things will be quite a bit different. What do we want Tom and Jerry to fight about tomorrow? Let’s browse through the collection of episodes on the Internet and decide. Let’s watch the same episode of Dexter’s Laboratory that we watch EVERY TIME instead of venturing outside of our comfort zones to try something new.

Honestly, kids these days don’t have to learn to deal with anything. As annoying as they were, commercials were a given part of the Saturday morning cartoon-watching ritual. Now, that ritual is a dead and beaten horse. Saturday morning cartoons were not just for the children but for their parents as well. That block of programming specifically set aside for cartoons allowed the perfect time for families to bond. Commercials simply provided a little break for kids and their parents to reflect on the crazy capers that their favorite cartoon characters have gotten into. Now, they can just fast forward and sit in silence the entire episode. How depressing.

So, Saturday Morning Cartoons, you will be gravely missed by me, by children everywhere, by their nostalgic parents, and many others. I am sure I am not alone in saying that I hope you rest in peace. May Scooby, Sonic, Garfield, all the Looney Tunes, and any other cartoon I have failed to mention forever remain in our hearts. Now, please join me in the reception hall for a photo montage of Saturday Morning Cartoon’s long and beautiful life. Refreshments will be served. Thank you.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RIP Saturday Morning Cartoons and Your Childhood appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC is on the verge of allowing internet fast lanes that would allow content providers to pay for faster access for their customers. Read on to learn why this proposal has generated so much controversy.

What is an internet  fast lane?

When commentators say “fast lane,” they are usually referring to paid prioritization. This is when an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Time Warner, charges a content provider, such as Google or Facebook, an extra fee for faster “lanes” of bandwidth. Effectively, the ISPs would be allowing content providers to pay for easier access to customers.

Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to its customers. This is the first deal of its kind.

Netflix is not happy about the deal at all. In a blog post, CEO Reed Hastings referred to the fee as an “arbitrary tax” and expressed concerns that escalating fees could continue to be charged to Netflix and other content providers. Netflix may have agreed to pay this fee not to gain an advantage but to gain download speeds they once had. This graphic from the Washington Post shows that Netflix’s download speeds on Comcast tanked during the negotiations and then suddenly spiked once Netflix agreed to pay the fee:

Why are ISPs allowed to create fast lanes?

ISPs like Comcast are allowed to charge content providers for faster access because of a recent court decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules regarding net neutrality. The FCC is the federal agency in charge of regulating communications over mediums such as radio and television.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. You should be able to load a Netflix page just as fast as you can load a YouTube page. This video from Mashable provides a clear visualization of the concept.

The FCC created regulatory rules in 2010 that would enforce net neutrality. Cable companies and other ISPs immediately cried foul and filed lawsuits.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. appeals court overruled the new rules. The reason? Broadband Internet is classified by the government as an information service. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate information services. The Internet used to be classified as a telecommunications service until a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The FCC is allowed to strictly regulate telecommunications services.

What is the FCC doing about fast lanes?

In the wake of the court ruling, the FCC is in the process of writing a new set of Internet rules that allow for fast lanes. For the past few months, the FCC has allowed public comment on its website on one main question: should the new rules allow fast lanes?

There is a possibility that these rules would permit only some heavily regulated fast lanes to exist. The FCC says that the rules would require these lanes be “commercially reasonable,” but that’s a vague requirement that could be exploited.

There’s also a possibility that the FCC could go in the opposite direction and ban prioritization. The FCC would do this by reclassifying broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, giving it the power to strictly regulate ISPs. This reclassification would almost certainly face a legal challenge by ISPs, as well as a challenge from Congress.

How have people reacted to this proposal?

The FCC received more than one million online comments about the proposed rule change in the span of five months. That is the most comments the agency has ever received, and almost topped the number of complaints the Commission received after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl.

Activists and content providers alike are not happy that the FCC is even considering legalizing fast lanes.

The Internet Association, an industry group that represents companies like Amazon, Google, and Uber, submitted a lengthy comment to the FCC’s website arguing, in part, that “charging for enhanced or prioritized access […] undermines the Internet’s level playing field.”

The association also expressed concern that ISPs might provide prioritization to their own content. For example, Comcast owns NBC Universal. A fast lane rule would allow Comcast to prioritize access to NBC television streaming over the quality of other network streaming services.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, took a more cynical view in this widely shared segment. Oliver accused the FCC and Chairman Tom Wheeler, who used to be a lobbyist for cable companies, of corruption. He also called on Internet trolls to flood the FCC with comments.

MoveOn, the liberal activism website, released this television ad encouraging viewers to call the FCC in support of network neutrality.

MoveOn’s lead campaign director Victoria Kaplan also released a statement saying that “MoveOn members strongly support Net Neutrality and are calling on the FCC to scrap proposed rules that would undermine an open Internet.”

ISPs, for the most part, are issuing vague statements about how they support an “open Internet.” For example, Comcast released a statement saying that “we support the FCC putting in place legally enforceable rules to ensure that there is a free and open Internet, including transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination rules.” This doesn’t really say anything specific. Comcast argued later in the statement against a reclassification of broadband Internet, but never argued why they should be allowed to charge for fast lanes.

In stunning contrast, AT&T provided a robust defense of fast lanes in its FCC comment. The whole document is definitely worth a read, but here’s the most important quote:

“In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements) specifically in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better services to their own customers.”

The line AT&T concluded the paragraph with is equally important to understanding the company’s argument:

“In short, the theoretical basis of this rationale for a strict nondiscrimination rule is thoroughly unsound and anathema to a market economy.”

AT&T’s argument is pretty unique. It is essentially saying that not allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane or not allowing ISPs to offer such an “upgrade” goes against the very foundation of a capitalist economy.

What’s important about this argument is the claim by AT&T that the fast lane would only amount to an “enhancement” in service for some companies and not a downgrade in service for companies that do not pay the fee.

Many activists doubt this will be the case. Instead, the “free” lane would be significantly slower. As John Oliver put it in the previously embedded segment, “if we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, it won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted To An Anchor.”

Conclusion

Soon, the FCC will create a new set of rules governing the Internet. It will either allow fast lanes to exist and face harsh public criticism or it will fight for net neutrality and face a barrage of lawsuits and challenges from ISPs and Congress. This is an issue you will want to keep an eye on if you use the Internet regularly.

Resources

Primary

FCC: FCC Launches Rulemaking On How To Protect The Open Internet

FCC: Comment: AT&T

FCC: Internet Association: Comment

Additional

Netflix CEO: The Case for Net Neutrality

Wall Street Journal: Court Tosses Out Open Internet Rules

CNET: 2005: FCC Changes Internet Classification

Hill: Former FCC Chairman on Net Neutrality

NPR: One Million FCC Comments Filed

Comcast: Comment

Guardian: Welcome to the Age of Digital Discrimination

MoveOn: Keep Internet Open

NextGov: The FCC is Getting Serious

Geeksided: MLB Speaks Out Against Fast Lanes

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web appeared first on Law Street.

A few years ago, the only way you could watch a TV program was to catch it when it was being aired. Then we got DVR, and then there were shows available online on demand; and now we have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and thousands of other (legal and illegal) ways to get our fix. And in so many ways, the Internet has completely revolutionized the way we watch TV. Because for a lot of us, TV isn’t contained to a physical television anymore. In fact, I, for the first time in about 3.5 years actually have a real, concrete television in my apartment. It only has the most basic of cable, but I often forget it’s there, because I’m so used to watching any and all TV programming on my computer.

So here are 4 different ways that the Internet has revolutionized TV…and whether these changes are good or bad.

4. We have an ability to find old shows that are new to us. 

Before this weird meld of Internet and TV, the only way to discover a show that was off the air was to catch reruns. Growing up, I watched plenty of shows this way, but they were often out of order, disjointed, and difficult to follow. The Internet allows us to watch a show from the beginning, even if it hasn’t aired on TV in any capacity in years. For example, my freshman year of college, most of my roommates and I got really into The West Wing. It had originally aired 1999-2006, so given that I was in middle school at the time, it obviously hadn’t caught my attention. And it’s not just my friends–when both House of Cards and Scandal began airing, I heard them compared to the incredibly idealistic liberal love letter that is The West Wing by other college students. Tons of political junkies my age are discovering the show that we were just a few years too young for when it originally aired. A couple days ago, The Wire did a “best fictional president” bracket in honor of the West Wing, and of course, President Jed Bartlett won it. I’m betting the reason that The West Wing remains in our memory and is still so regularly referenced is because the Internet allows new watchers to discover it whenever they want, in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s still streaming on Netflix. 

Good or Bad? Good. Finding a show that speaks to your interests is a great thing. Now my West Wing example is incredibly silly, I know, but I’ve absolutely used common interest in that show as a conversation topic before in my daily life. Most of my friends have seen it, and it’s just another thing that connects us. TV, for better or worse, plays a large part in our lives, and it’s pretty cool that the Internet has opened us up to shows from before our time. This doesn’t extend purely to shows that are before our time, this also allows us to see shows from other countries that usually wouldn’t make it to our TVs, which is also pretty cool!

3. Shows made exclusively for Netflix and other online networks. 

This is also an incredibly recent phenomenon. In the past two years or so, Netflix has released a number of original series. The two most well known are probably House of Cards and Orange is the New Black, but there are a few others, including Hemlock Grove, and Lilyhammer, and there are also exclusive documentaries and stand-up comedy shows. These are high quality shows, and because they aren’t airing on TV, Netflix can afford to be risqué. This year, Netflix made history by being the first non-TV network to win an Emmy. Netflix isn’t the only Internet network to create their own content, though they are probably the most critically acclaimed and well-known. Amazon Prime and Hulu have also started producing their own content.

Good or bad? Good. More quality content is good for the viewers, to be sure, and it opens up opportunities for more experimental shows that networks may not want to chance, given that the content is less severely constrained by broadcasting. Television networks are complaining that it’s cutting into their viewership, but hopefully the competition will force them to up their game. After all, do we really need another “Real Housewives of ______” show?

Sheldon doesn’t think so.

2. The Veronica Mars Kickstarter and Arrested Development Relaunch. 

I will unabashedly admit that Veronica Mars and Arrested Development are arguably two of my favorite shows ever. In some ways, they have a similar story–they were both cult favorites with high critical ratings but pretty low viewership. They both got cancelled after three seasons. And they both got a final hurrah in the last year–Arrested Development through a Netflix original fourth season, and Veronica Mars through a full length movie that was released late last week. I, like so many other fans, anticipated the extensions to both of these shows with bated breath.

The relaunch of these two shows is a testament to the seductive power of creating a product for fans. Netflix took a chance on Arrested Development, to be sure, but it was surely backed up by data. Netflix doesn’t release viewership figures, but they must have seen something in the data about the first 3 seasons previously available on the site to make them think that a 4th season would be profitable. A lot of people didn’t actually end up liking the 4th season much, myself included, but the fact that it was even undertaken in the first place says a lot about the lobbying power of fans.

The Veronica Mars is a more perfect example of my point. The movie was primarily funded by a Kickstarter campaign, run by the stars of the show and creator Rob Thomas. The Kickstarter reached $5.7 million in pledges from fans. The fans of the show literally paid to have this movie made–that’s how passionate the fan base is. Those who contributed certain amounts got perks too–like small extra roles, or online access to the movie. The film has gotten mixed reviews (I, for one, loved it!) but the launch has reprised a lot of discussions about how before-it’s-time the show was, like this one about rape culture  or this one about social class. My point is though, that TV is more influenced by fans than ever before.

Good or bad? Both. I loved that both these shows got their much-needed endings, but there is something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie. The Veronica Mars movie was, in my opinion, good, the Arrested Development season 4 was bad. You know when a kid wants candy and you give it to them and then they get sick from too much sugar? Catering to fans’ whims has the potential to end up like that, and networks need to watch out for being too responsive to fan requests.  

 1. The phenomenon of “binge watching.”

Binge watching is new, created by the ability to access shows online with the internet. Binge watching is defined as 2-6 episodes of one show in a sitting. The only precursor was perhaps the TV marathon, but I don’t really think that counts because even in a marathon, the TV network still did stop airing the marathon at some point. 

We now have the ability to sit on our asses and watch a show for as long as we please. I am absolutely being a gigantic hypocrite right now, because I have totally binge watched quite a few shows, but I am trying to make some effort to stop. Binge watching is when you let Netflix play until the wee hours of the morning, watching a show until it really barely makes sense anymore. It’s when you get that immediate gratification of watching the next episode instead of actually thinking about what you just watched. Roughly 61% of respondents to a Netflix Survey last year say they regularly binge watch. 

Good or bad? Guys, I’ve got to think this is a bad thing. First, I have binge watched many a show that I can barely remember the next day. It’s impossible to thoroughly pay attention to anything that long, at least with the kind of attention that allows you to appropriately appreciate the show. It takes away the ability to talk about the show with your friends and coworkers the next day the way you can when the show is aired once a week on a network. And finally, as big a fan as I am of TV, that’s just too much. So here’s a suggestion–go ahead and binge-watch, in moderation. But take some time to appreciate what you’re watching. And remember, things are changing about TV and you don’t want it all to pass you by because you can’t stop watching House of Cards.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy: [Flickr/Wesley Fryer]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Meld of Internet and TV…Good or Bad? appeared first on Law Street.

When news of a deal between Netflix and Comcast initially broke, I was stuck clicking the refresh button, waiting impatiently for – ironically enough – my Comcast Internet service to return after a 3-hour hiatus.

While I had the misfortune of having to deal with slow to nonexistent Internet service, that will no longer be the case for Comcast subscribers streaming movies and TV shows from Netflix.

Addressing recent reports of declining streaming quality and performance, Netflix, whose content makes up 32 percent of evening Internet traffic in North America, has agreed to pay Comcast, the nation’s largest Internet provider, for direct access to its systems. Although specific terms of the deal were not disclosed, Netflix is essentially paying the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to ensure faster streaming.

In previous years, Cogent, a multinational third party content distributor, played the role of middle-man between Comcast and Netflix. With this new deal, Cogent has been removed from the equation, effectively simplifying the digital route from Netflix’s servers to our laptop screens and allowing for faster and higher quality streaming of popular shows like House of Cards.

Although Netflix has called the agreement “mutually beneficial,” there has been controversy regarding potential implications of such a deal.

One concern, according to Elise Hu of NPR, is that “paying for access could become a norm that could stifle opportunities for startup Internet services.” While more established companies could probably afford to pay access fees, such an environment could be prohibitive to newer businesses looking to make a name for themselves.

“We now have an Internet service provider telling content providers that the only way its service can work is if you pay an extra fee,” Michael Weinberg, vice president of the digital advocacy group Public Knowledge, told USA Today. “The Internet service provider is injecting itself into the relationship between Netflix and its customers,” he added.

While some believe this deal is yet another example of the insatiable greed of corporate giants like Comcast, others suggest intentions are far less sinister.

Mashable writer Lance Ulanoff insists the Comcast-Netflix deal is just business as usual. According to Ulanoff, the deal is far from the first of its kind. “Comcast has an entire business devoted to ‘wholesale dedicated IP transit,’ which means it will sell this kind of access to anyone that wants to purchase it,” he said. “Netflix’s deal with Comcast is simply the first completed one we’ve heard about. Verizon and T-Mobile are also working on similar non-transit or interconnect deals. It’s standard operating procedure, but not one that consumers know much about, which is one of the reasons there’s so much confusion,” he continued.

As Ulanoff points outs, direct access to Comcast’s systems is not exclusively available to Netflix. Any business can purchase it – for the right price, of course. In fact, Ulanoff suggests other companies are likely already following suit and buying direct access to Comcast’s networks. If so, then why haven’t we heard of any more deals? Ulanoff says such deals are seldom publicized; the deal with Netflix seems to be a rare exception. Although faster Comcast service is, in theory, fair game for all, the scales are clearly tipping against less established companies who simply cannot afford the price tag.

The Comcast-Netflix deal comes only a few months after the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Verizon, which owns Comcast, and effectively struck down the FCC’s net-neutrality rules. In essence, net-neutrality regulations “would have required Internet service providers to treat all online traffic equally, rather than giving preference to companies willing to pay extra fees for faster service.”

With net-neutrality defeated for the time being (the FCC is drafting new proposals), ISPs like Verizon/Comcast, and AT&T could potentially be free to charge higher rates for “preferred treatment.” When all is said and done, those expenses for online companies like Netflix and Google’s Youtube could ultimately come out of our pockets.

Although future implications remain unclear, the absence of net-neutrality and the partnership of content and service providers set a potentially dangerous precedent. Still, as paying Comcast customers, we really don’t have a whole lot to complain about at this point. Sure, this deal could make things more complicated in the long-term. But on the bright side, customers shouldn’t see any price increases for their service, at least for the time being. So kick back, grab an adult beverage, and drown out any worries about the absence of net-neutrality regulations with a five-hour Netflix binge session.

[Mashable] [USA Today] [NPR] [Bloomberg]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [rachellynnae via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down the Comcast-Netflix Deal: Should We Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, Aereo requested that a federal court in Manhattan rule that its business offers legal services. The gist of Aereo, founded in New York, is to transmit local TV broadcasting to pai subscribers of the service over the internet. As a Comcast customer who’s consistently unsatisfied with my service features to monthly payment ratio, I can envision the untapped market that Aereo is attempting to reach. Consumers still want their daily intake of local news, and occasionally some Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal, but don’t want to be obligated to pay $80 a month for additional channels that their schedule doesn’t permit them to enjoy.

The service is $8 per month and enables customers who don’t want to pay ridiculous amounts for cable television to access local broadcasting.  Broadcasters have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to chime in and voice their perspective on Aereo’s services. This is long overdue as Aereo has already been subjected to suits in New York, Boston, and now Utah by major broadcasters such as ABC, NBC, and CBS. Broadcasters argue that their copyrights are being violated because Aereo is taking their signals without their permission and showcasing them to online viewers. Conversely, Aereo points out that it is already legal for viewers to use their own antennas and pick up local tv broadcasts. Additionally, viewers can legally record these broadcasts and replay them at a later time. The Aereo method is to rent out tiny antennas, capture free content in the public airwaves, and stream the content to your internet-enabled devices. So essentially, Aereo only utilizes tools that are legal, making broadcasters throughout the nation cause an uproar in our judicial system because the service has found a way to circumvent their licensing fees.

Federal courts in New York and Boston have allowed Aereo to continue to operate throughout the pending lawsuits, noting that broadcasters have not shown a high probability of winning their cases to warrant an injunction. The service launched a year ago, and there are already (approximately) 90,000-135,000 subscribers of the Aereo service in New York alone.

There is no copyright infringement here, ABC. That’s why injunctions have been denied, and the service has been upheld in different locales for over a year now. The real reason that the broadcasters are experiencing mood-changing-panty-bunching is because Aereo is threatening to interrupt the television system that brings them billions of dollars each year. Cable companies, such as Comcast  (I HATE YOU, COMCAST!), charge us a shit-ton to view local broadcasting, such as NBC and ABC, because they pay these broadcasters billions in retransmission fees to include their shows in subscriptions. And what does Aereo pay? Nothing.

Perhaps this is why Comcast was so eager to haggle with me when I threatened to cancel my service a few weeks ago. Makes sense.  If cable companies don’t begin offering better prices, sooner rather than later Netflix, Apple TV, and now Aereo will replace them faster than DVD players won over VCR owners. And I’ll be the first to go.

I either need to cancel my service, get a hanger and try to reel in some news stations for myself or practice what I preach and join Aereo when it arrives in D.C.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Pablo Menezo via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kicking Broadcast and Taking Names: The Aereo Method appeared first on Law Street.