WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Federal Communications Commission has opened a new investigation into whether Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc engaged in misrepresentations or a lack of candor in its failed effort to win approval for a $3.9 billion bid to purchase Tribune Media Co.

In a June 25 letter to Sinclair posted Wednesday on the FCC’s website, the government agency directed Sinclair to answer a series of questions and provide documents by July 9, warning that “failing to respond accurately and completely to this (letter) constitutes a violation of the act and our rules.”

Sinclair did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

An administrative judge in March dropped a hearing into allegations that Sinclair, the largest U.S. broadcast station owner, may have misled regulators. Judge Jane Halprin added however that the allegations “are extremely serious charges that reasonably warrant a thorough examination.”

Tribune terminated the sale of 42 TV stations in 33 markets to Sinclair, which has 192 stations, in August. A month earlier the FCC referred the deal for a hearing, questioning Sinclair’s candor over the planned sale of some stations and suggesting Sinclair would effectively retain control over them.

The collapse of the deal, which was backed by U.S. President Donald Trump, potentially ended Sinclair’s hopes of building a national conservative-leaning TV powerhouse that might have rivaled Twenty-First Century Fox Inc’s Fox News.

Sinclair in March said it continues “to maintain that we were completely candid, transparent and honest with the FCC during its review of our proposed acquisition of Tribune Media.”

Andrew Schwartzman, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the FCC could have waited to address the issues when Sinclair’s licenses were up for renewal, but said the inquiry was “inevitable” given the FCC’s prior findings.

After the deal collapsed, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau said it did not oppose dismissal of the hearing proceeding.

Part of a letter sent by the FCC to Sinclair Broadcasting.

Nexstar Media Group Inc said in December it will buy Tribune in a $4.1 billion deal that would make it the largest regional U.S. TV station operator. The deal is still under review by the Justice Department and the FCC.

Democrats accused Sinclair of slanting news coverage in favor of Republicans. Trump last year criticized the Republican-led FCC for not approving the Tribune deal, saying on Twitter it “would have been a great and much needed Conservative voice for and of the People.”

In 2017, the FCC said it was fining Sinclair $13.38 million after it failed to properly disclose that paid programming that aired on local TV stations was sponsored by a cancer institute.

In the latest inquiry, Sinclair could face new fines.

In May, Walt Disney Co said it would sell its interests in 21 regional sports networks and Fox College Sports to Sinclair for $9.6 billion.

Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Stephen Coates

Comcast Corporation today made a surprise $31 billion bid to acquire Sky, the British-based satellite TV, internet, and wireless provider, disrupting a rival bid from 21st Century Fox, which spent years trying to acquire the 61% of Sky it doesn’t already own.

Comcast’s bid of £12.50 a share to acquire Sky outright is significantly higher than the £10.75/share offer Fox made to take total control of the satellite venture. A third player – Disney, has been in talks with Fox to acquire a substantial number of its assets, including its minority ownership stake in Sky, for $52 billion. But Comcast’s bid may change everything.

That three American companies are now competing to acquire Europe’s largest media company and biggest pay-TV broadcaster, with more than 23 million subscribers, could create concern among some regulators about foreign ownership of the media. A bid from Comcast is likely to be less controversial than dealing with Rupert Murdoch, however, who already has extensive media holdings in the United Kingdom.

There are three distinct possible bidders for Sky now:

• Comcast, which prefers to take 100% ownership but will accept a majority stake shared with Fox (or possibly Disney).
• Disney wants minority stake in Sky through its $52+ billion acquisition of some of Fox’s assets, including Fox’s part-ownership in Sky.
• Fox, which has sought to take full control of Sky for several years but has met with resistance was originally the most likely buyer. But more recently, Rupert Murdoch has recently shown a willingness to sell some of Fox’s assets, including Sky, if the price is right.

Sky’s share price leaped more than 20% today to £13.47—well above the Comcast offer—as investors believe there will be a bidding war over Sky. Because many hedge funds and investors expect Fox will increase its bid to match Comcast, in turn boosting the value of Sky’s stock, investors are accumulating shares at a rapid pace and driving up share prices further.

Sky has become increasingly valuable because it isn’t just a satellite TV provider. Sky also develops its own original productions, has valuable sports rights deals, and sells broadband and mobile phone service. American media companies are consolidating, preferring to own both the pipes that deliver internet content and the content itself. Acquiring Sky would allow Fox, Disney, and/or Comcast to showcase its own productions in Europe and to a lesser extent import Sky products into the United States.

Regulators in the United Kingdom are likely to press any buyer to protect the independence of Sky News, a well-regarded 24-hour news channel. Many expect regulators to insist that Sky’s buyer  agree to fund Sky for at least 10 years and guarantee its editorial independence.

Two N.J. public-television stations will collect more than $330 million to turn off their transmitters.

At a time when the Trump Administration is signaling its interest in eliminating the small amount of funding still available to public broadcasting in the United States, the recent FCC Spectrum Auction brought some public stations much-needed revenue to complete station or facility upgrades and help underwrite the cost of locally produced programming. But some TV station owners will pocket tens of millions of dollars from auction proceeds earned from a license that was supposed to include a commitment to serve in the public interest.

Current – News for People in Public Media has tracked the station changes that will come to public-television stations as a result of the spectrum auction. In most cases, the public-TV stations that sold their channel position will not disappear entirely. Many will “merge into other station’s spectrum” — which means in plain English they will share space with another local station.

It won’t be a total loss for public-television in most of these cities. Many are served by “repeater” stations that essentially rebroadcast programming from another nearby station. In larger cities, multiple public-TV stations are not uncommon and losing one might not have a big impact, especially if remaining stations pick up some of the programming that will go missing when the affected station signs off. But in some states, the loss of free over the air TV stations could exacerbate the growing problem of maintaining quality coverage of local news and events.

For cord-cutters, local free television remains an essential part of the kind of TV package consumers used to pay the cable or satellite company to receive. Local stations still deliver an important public service to the community through news and public affairs programming, but that responsibility is increasingly taking a back seat to profits.

The state of New Jersey is served by two media markets – one in New York City, the other Philadelphia, neither in New Jersey.

For some states, the challenge to deliver locally focused programming in areas dominated by media markets in adjacent states has been a problem for decades. No state has faced this challenge more than New Jersey, divided in half and served by two out-of-state media Designated Market Areas (DMAs). The northern half of New Jersey is part of the New York City TV market and the southern half is part of the Philadelphia DMA. As a result, local stories about events inside New Jersey can get lost in favor of stories centered on New York or Philadelphia, even more so during today’s era of media consolidation and cutbacks in newsroom budgets.

A Free Press project is trying to address that problem by encouraging New Jersey state officials to create a public trust fund from part of the hundreds of millions earned by the state’s stations from the spectrum auction to support community-driven projects, responsive local journalism, serious investigative reporting, civic technology and essential public media outlets. The campaign seeks to remind state and local officials that the airwaves still belong to the public, and the stations collecting large sums from the auction agreed to serve their communities in return for obtaining that license to broadcast. Simply putting auction proceeds into their pockets isn’t serving the public interest.

“It’s only right that money from the sale of the state’s 20th-century media outlets be used to create a new, forward-thinking media landscape for this century that focuses on local communities and is attuned to residents’ needs,” said Mike Rispoli, Free Press Action Fund journalism campaign director and director of the News Voices: New Jersey project. “When local stations go off the air, news coverage disappears. That means people are less informed, civic participation drops and political corruption increases. Spectrum revenues must be used to support those who rely on locally produced news and information to engage with their neighbors, learn about volunteer opportunities, make decisions about voting, run for public office, get information about small businesses and support their children in local schools.”

Just two New Jersey public-television stations WNJN and WNJT together collected more than $330 million in auction revenues — two of the largest individual payouts of any noncommercial stations. Now both stations plan to go off the air. Where exactly will that money be going?

The News Voices: New Jersey project wants some of it spent on making sure New Jersey residents have a New Jersey-focused news media, particularly in a state where political scandals have not been uncommon.

“Some ideas we’ve heard from journalists and community members on how to use these public proceeds include support for locally focused digital news startups; apps and tools to help people sift through public data and expedite Freedom of Information Act requests; robust community-engagement projects designed to lift up voices long ignored by newsrooms, in communities of color, immigrant communities, and other underserved areas; and media-literacy programs to identify and combat the spread of fake news and disinformation,” Rispoli said.

The group is asking interested members of the public to sign up for the project and help advocate for stronger newsrooms and communities. A similar effort is also getting underway in North Carolina.

As of today, here is an update on what is happening with the public-TV stations affected by the FCC Spectrum Auction.

Licensed to print money

In 2008, Stop the Cap! was launched because the telephone company that serves our hometown of Rochester, N.Y., decided on a whim that it was appropriate to introduce a usage allowance of 5GB per month for their DSL customers. Frontier Communications CEO-at-the-time Maggie Wilderotter defended the idea with the usual claim that the included allowance was more than enough for the majority of Frontier customers. DSL customers already have to endure a lot of issues with Internet service and data caps should certainly not be one of them.

Stop the Cap! drew media attention and focus on the issue of data capping, organized customers for a coordinated pushback, and sufficiently hassled Frontier enough to get them to make the right decision for their customers by quietly rescinding the “allowances.”

As it would turn out, Frontier’s correct decision to suspend usage caps would prove an asset to them less than one year later when Time Warner Cable made it known it would trial its own usage caps in Austin and San Antonio, Tex., Greensboro, N.C., and yes… Rochester, N.Y. starting in the summer of 2009.

Time Warner Cable was slightly more generous with its arbitrary allowance — 40GB of usage for $55 a month. Customers already paying a lot for Internet access would now also have an arbitrary usage allowance and overlimit penalty fees with no service improvements in sight. Frontier’s decision the year before to rescind data caps played to their advantage and the company quickly launched advertising in Rochester attacking Time Warner Cable for its data caps, inviting customers to switch to cap-free Internet with Frontier.

Data caps are here!

Time Warner Cable’s experiment lasted less than two weeks and was permanently shelved, never to return. Four years later, Comcast began its own usage cap trial that not only continues to this day, but has expanded to cover more than 1,000 zip codes. Capped service areas typically live with a 300GB usage allowance with an overlimit fee of $10 per 50GB.

Yesterday at the investor-oriented UBS Global Media and Communications Brokers Conference, Comcast chief financial officer Mike Cavanagh assured Wall Street and shareholders Comcast’s desire to boost revenue from monetizing broadband usage remained an “important contributor” to the company’ goal of “demonstrat[ing] value and derive value from that pricing.”

Cavanagh said the company is using the line ‘heavy users should pay more’ to justify its caps.

“It’s been an experiment that we are using that the key data point behind it is kind of intuitive – ‘10% of our client base uses 50% of capacity.'”

While not ready to announce Comcast’s cap plan would be introduced nationwide, Cavanagh assured investors the experiments will continue as Comcast makes sure that over time it is “compensated for the investments that today’s marketplace requires us to make.”

The difference that makes it possible for Comcast to carry its usage cap experiments forward while Time Warner Cable had to quickly end theirs comes down to one thing: organized customer pushback. Time Warner Cable got heat from relentless, organized opposition in the four cities where caps mattered the most to consumers. Comcast, for the most part, is getting about as much heat as it usually does from customers. It’s time to turn the heat up.

In fighting this battle for the last seven years, I can share with readers what works to force change and what doesn’t:

In 2009, Time Warner Cable faced protesters opposed to usage limits at this rally in front of the company’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Generally Useless

• Complaining about usage caps in the comment sections of websites;
• Signing online petitions;

Impotent But Potentially Useful in Large Numbers

• Calling the provider to complain about usage caps;
• Complaining about usage caps to a provider’s social media team (Facebook, Twitter, etc.);
• Writing complaints on a company’s open support forum;

Useful, But Unlikely to Bring Immediate Results

• Writing a letter or making a call complaining to elected officials about usage caps;
• Advocating for more competition, especially from public/municipal broadband;
• Filing formal complaints with the FCC and Better Business Bureau;
• Complaining to state telecom regulators and your state Attorney General (they have no direct authority but can attract political attention);
• Canceling or downgrading service, blaming usage caps for your decision.

Gasoline on a Lit Fire

• Organizing a protest in front of the local cable office, with local media given at least a day’s notice and invited to attend;
• Contacting local newsrooms and asking them to write or air stories about usage caps, offering yourself as an interview subject;
• Sending local press clippings or links to media coverage to your member of Congress and two senators. Suggest another media-friendly event and invite the elected official to attend and speak, which in turn generates even more media interest.

In 2009, Time Warner Cable planned to implement mandatory usage pricing starting in Rochester, N.Y., Greensboro, N.C., and San Antonio and Austin, Tex.

In the battle with Time Warner Cable, we did all the above, but especially the latter, which quickly spun the story out of control of company officials sent to distribute propaganda about usage cap “fairness” and “generous” allowances. We were so relentless, we managed to get under the skin of at least one company spokesperson caught on camera being testy in an on-air interview, which backfired on the company and angered customers even more.

In the case of Comcast, very few of these techniques have been used in the fight against their endless data cap experiment. Customers seem satisfied writing angry comments and signing online petitions. Some have filed complaints with the FCC which are useful measures of hot button issues on which the FCC may act in the last year of the Obama Administration. But there is no detectable organized opposition on the ground to Comcast’s data caps. That may explain why Comcast’s CEO has repeatedly told investors your reactions to Comcast’s caps have been “neutral to slightly positive.” Many Wall Street analysts obviously believe that, because some are advocating the time is right to raise broadband prices even higher. After all, if your reaction to data caps was muted, raising the price another $5 a month probably won’t cost you as a customer either.

It would be very different if these analysts saw regular news reports of small groups of angry customers protesting in front of Comcast offices in different areas of the country. That would likely trigger questions about whether broadband pricing has gotten out of hand. Coverage like that often attracts politicians, who cannot lose opposing a cable company. Once Congress gets interested, the fear regulation might be coming next is usually enough to get companies to pull back and reconsider.

If you are living with a Comcast data cap and want to see it gone, you can do something about it. Consider organizing your own local movement by tapping fellow angry customers and recruiting local activist groups to the cause. In Rochester, there was no shortage of angry college students and groups ready to protest. Google local progressive political groups, technology clubs, and technology-dependent organizations in your immediate area. Some are likely to be a good resource for building effective public protests, sign-making, and other TV-friendly protest techniques. Contact town governments, the mayor’s office of your city, technology-oriented newspaper columnists, radio talk show/computer support show hosts, etc., to build a mailing list for coordinated announcements about your efforts. Many local officials also oppose data caps.

If a local news reporter has covered tech or consumer issues in the past, many station websites now offer direct e-mail options to reach that reporter. If you give them a good TV-friendly story to cover, they will be back for more coverage as your local protest grows. We helped coordinate and share news about efforts against Time Warner in the cities that were subject to experiments, which also gave us advance notice of their talking points and an ability to offer a consistent response. Several stations carried multiple stories about the cap issue, supported by calls to TV newsrooms to thank them for their coverage and to encourage more.

We realize Comcast’s responsiveness to customers is so atrocious it approaches criminal, but Comcast does respond to Wall Street and shareholders who do not want the company under threat of fact-finding hearings, FCC regulatory action, or Congressional attention. They also don’t want any talk of municipal broadband alternatives. Sidewalk protests in front of the local cable office on the 6 o’clock news is a nightmare.

In the end, Time Warner Cable didn’t want the hassle and got the message — customers despise data caps and want nothing to do with them. Time Warner hasn’t tried compulsory usage caps again. If you want Comcast to get the same message, those living inside Comcast service areas (especially customers) need to lead the charge in their respective communities. We remain willing to help.

Less than a week after ISIS-connected terrorists is Paris allegedly killed at least 129 people in a coordinated attack, false reports continue to be spread through news services and social media. It’s enough to make you cringe.

On Sunday, media outlets began turning their attention to a “contributor” piece appearing on Forbes‘ website that suggested terrorists may have used a popular game console connected to the Internet to discuss and plan the attack:

The hunt for those responsible (eight terrorists were killed Saturday night, but accomplices may still be at large) led to a number of raids in nearby Brussels. Evidence reportedly turned up included at least one PlayStation 4 console.

Belgian federal home affairs minister Jan Jambon said outright that the PS4 is used by ISIS agents to communicate, and was selected due to the fact that it’s notoriously hard to monitor. “PlayStation 4 is even more difficult to keep track of than WhatsApp,” he said.

After nearly 500,000 views of the Forbes article, the author admitted to a gaming publication that he got his story wrong. It has since been edited to remove several serious factual errors. How could Forbes have gotten the story so wrong?

Phillip Dampier

Forbes does not strictly edit the content of its large base of online contributors, which increasingly resembles the publishing model of the Huffington Post. As a result, Forbes‘ disavows (in small print) any editorial connection to their writers, claiming their opinions do not represent the venerable business publication. But few in the media seemed to pick up that disclaimer suggested some skepticism might be appropriate. Instead, the story spread unquestioned like wildfire.

By Monday, Kotaku attempted to set the record straight, verifying Jambon’s comments were actually delivered on Nov. 10, three days before the Paris attack and only from the context of Belgium’s generally perceived security weaknesses. Claims that a PlayStation 4 was allegedly seized from an attacker’s apartment have now been declared “an editing error,” and the author has backed even further away from his inference it was used to help coordinate the attack. That is a charitable way of saying the central thesis of the Forbes‘ story about the events in Paris was entirely wrong.

“This was actually a mistake that I’ve had to edit and correct,” Forbes‘ writer Paul Tassi told Kotaku on Monday. “I misread the minister’s statement, because even though he was specifically saying that PS4 was being used by ISIS to communicate, there is no public list of evidence list of what was found in the specific recent raids. I’ve edited the post to reflect that, and it was more meant to be about discussing why or how groups like ISIS can use consoles. It’s my fault, as I misinterpreted his statement.”

The idea that ordinary Internet-connected game consoles can be used to quietly coordinate major terror attacks proved irresistible catnip for cable news. CNN and MSNBC both discussed the implications of terrorists enabled with game consoles, while Fox News further amplified the claim to suggest government agencies might not be monitoring these communications, opening a national security risk. Fox News even coined the Paris attack a “Joystick Jihad,” removing one sentence from its initial report to correct claims of a seizure of the game console, but left the rest of its story intact:

“There is no doubt that terrorists and other underground networks are using PlayStation and other non-traditional means to communicate with each other,” said Paul Martini, CEO of cyber security specialist iboss Cybersecurity, in a statement emailed to FoxNews.com. The CEO noted that the languages and protocols that PlayStation uses to communicate over the Internet are much different from those used in web browsers and other apps. “They are typically encrypted communication channels that are built on custom-designed languages built for speed and security – since PlayStation involves multi-player Internet connected users, it’s very distributed, high speed and difficult to track and monitor,” Martini added.

Videogame network or terrorist digital meeting spot?

Friday evening’s attacks are being used by a variety of interest groups to push various agendas, ranging from promoting military intervention in Syria to stopping Syrian refugees from entering the United States. But privacy groups also fear Forbes‘ story will be used to argue for extended government surveillance beyond telephone calls, text messaging, and Internet traffic, into third-party private encrypted networks like Sony’s PlayStation Network. In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden claimed the NSA and CIA were already there.

British newspaper The Telegraph suggested Sony’s private network has hardly proven itself an impenetrable digital Fort Knox:

Sony doesn’t exactly have a great reputation for security. A hack of PSN in 2011 saw 77 million users affected by personal data theft, and a hack emerged in December last year that saw many personal details of celebrities and other public figures leaked.

Media critics complain there is a danger that the demand for immediate news results in reporting information before it can be sufficiently sourced and verified. Elements of stories later proven wrong can remain a part of a story’s narrative, even when quickly discredited or changed as a result of newly obtained information. Examples of this are especially common on social media. Less serious examples include sharing photographs on Twitter and Facebook purporting to be from Paris that were actually taken months earlier. In other cases, depictions of solidarity with Paris from around the world were often misconstrued from other unrelated events. More serious are the false narratives that can damage a brand’s reputation, prod policy changes, or even fuel new laws, such as efforts to further extend surveillance.

While the corrections are helpful and appropriate, the rush to print first and verify later is becoming more common than ever. The Forbes’ author claimed he made a “reporting mistake” because he rushed to judgment connecting Jambon’s earlier statements to the Paris attacks. But that does not explain or justify his more important claim that a PlayStation 4 console was found as a result of the raid and his suggestion it was used to plan and coordinate a terrorist attack.

So our advice to Forbes‘ authors is simple. A story about a game console being used by terrorists was never just going to be treated as an interesting story angle. It would be used by the media, pundits, and officials to debate and discuss whether national security is at risk unless surveillance improves. Some will go as far to suggest controls on game consoles or new government authority to monitor the games and those playing them. Before we have that debate, let’s at least get the story right. We’ve seen the results of public policy changes based on flawed intelligence and erroneous media reports too often. Let’s not do that again.

Correction: Original story referenced “Kontaku,” which has been corrected to reflect the site’s actual name – Kotaku. Thanks to Mark E. for spotting the error.