November 2007

FCC LOCALISM HEARING
Critics Turn Out To Protest Media Consolidation
Statements by Commissioners
Links to testimony

INTERNET/BROADBAND
FCC Releases Data on High-Speed Services for Internet Access
Official: Rural Broadband Program Is Flawed
States Step In to Close Broadband Gap
FCC Expands Local Number Portability to VoIP

CABLE
Cable Gets Video-Franchise Relief from FCC
FCC's new cable rules: one step forward, one step back?
FCC bans exclusive cable deals at apartment complexes

BROADCASTING
Broadcasters: DTV PSA Mandate Unnecessary

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Key Senators Raise Doubts on Eavesdropping Immunity

ADVERTISING
F.T.C. to Review Online Ads and Privacy

QUICKLY -- Locked vs. Unlocked: Opening Up=20
Cellphone Choice; Have a Laptop? You, Too, Can=20
Sway New Hampshire Race; Users at Newspaper Sites Still On Rise

FCC LOCALISM HEARING

CRITICS TURN OUT TO PROTEST MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Frank Ahrens]
Even though the media landscape has changed=20
radically since the last time the Federal=20
Communications Commission tried to alter its=20
media-ownership rules, a hearing at the FCC=20
yesterday showed that the debate remains as=20
heated as ever. A range of social, political and=20
consumer groups that successfully petitioned a=20
federal court to throw out the FCC's 2003 attempt=20
to relax ownership rules is once again fighting=20
to keep limits on how many radio and television=20
stations conglomerates can buy. The groups=20
testified as the five-member commission works to=20
update its ownership rules to the court's=20
satisfaction, a task it hopes to accomplish soon.=20
The FCC began its review of the ownership rules=20
18 months ago, but protesters were energized to=20
appear at yesterday's hearing by recent=20
statements by FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, who=20
has said he wishes to speed the matter to a=20
conclusion soon. The issue spurred some street=20
theater outside the FCC building, where a group=20
of about 100 gathered. A squad of activists=20
dressed as cheerleaders donned sweaters reading=20
"FCC" and cheered, "Two, four, six, eight, who do=20
we consolidate?" The group listened to=20
anti-consolidation remarks from Jesse Jackson as=20
well as two FCC commissioners who have worked=20
within the agency to limit media conglomerate growth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR200710...
2915.html
(requires registration)
* Media vote may be delayed
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's plan to consider=20
major changes to media ownership rules by year's=20
end could be derailed by growing calls for the=20
agency to first complete a long-running study of=20
how broadcasters serve their local communities.=20
Most people who spoke at the hearing, including=20
the Rev. Jesse Jackson, urged the FCC to go=20
slowly, echoing recent concerns by some lawmakers=20
after learning of Martin's proposal to try to=20
vote on media ownership changes Dec. 18.
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-fcc1nov01,1,2514814.s...
y?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business
* FCC Gets Earful on Media Ownership
According to the Parents Television Council,=20
media consolidation has led to the "destruction=20
of the concept of community standards." Andrew J.=20
Schwartzman of Media Access Project said most TV=20
stations aren't operated in the public interest,=20
and radio has abandoned public service=20
altogether. A familiar radio voice, former=20
National Public Radio host and American=20
Federation of Television & Radio Artists officer=20
Bob Edwards, told the FCC not to "fast-track" its=20
consideration of the effects of consolidation.=20
But Marcellus Alexander of the National=20
Association of Broadcasters said localism was in=20
broadcasters=92 financial interest because=20
broadcasters had to compete for local eyeballs that can and will go elsewhe=
re.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495976.html?rssid=3D193
* Jackson Slams XM-Sirius Merger
Rev Jesse Jackson echoed his long-standing=20
complaints about the lack of minority ownership=20
and his belief that it is a civil-rights issue,=20
with consolidated media controlling the social=20
agenda by deciding what is important to report=20
on. Rev Jackson said the media regulation process=20
was broken and corrupt, and it was time to=20
democratize the way the FCC does business. It is=20
not enough to let people speak at hearings, he=20
added -- the commission must listen and act, but=20
not rush toward more consolidation.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495989.html?rssid=3D193
* Tricks, no treats at FCC hearing
The FCC got an earful and an eyeful during the=20
commission's hearing on broadcast localism=20
Wednesday when protesters dressed as cheerleaders=20
and a self-styled "corporate media whore" brought=20
Halloween satire to the staid agency.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ib...
4be5fd5d93e833c71ccb1717a91f
* No Treats for FCC Chair and Media Monopolists (John Nichols/The Nation)
[Commentary] FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is=20
organizing hearings with an eye toward serving=20
media owners -- and delivering on their demands=20
-- rather than with an interest in meeting the=20
need of the citizens the FCC is supposed to serve.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071031/cm_thenation/1247519

STATEMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS

* Martin Statement: "I believe the Commission=20
needs to make a number of policy and rule changes=20
to ensure that all broadcasters better serve their local communities."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277762A1.doc
* FCC=92s Martin Outlines Localism Initiatives
Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin=20
Martin said he proposed that local TV stations be=20
able to pre-empt network programming any time=20
they want to air programming vital to their local=20
communities, and that radio stations have a=20
person on the premises during all hours of=20
operation. That was among a raft of proposals he=20
said he made to the other commissioners to=20
address the issues of the effects of=20
consolidation on broadcast localism. Commissioner=20
Jonathan Adelstein asked Media Bureau chief=20
Monica Desai how many witnesses at the FCC's=20
public hearings had said consolidation was good=20
for localism. She could not say, but Martin=20
conceded that it was only a handful, and he could=20
remember only one, in San Antonio, and only that=20
one because of the boos from the audience.=20
Chairman Martin and Commissioner Adelstein had a=20
bit of a dust-up during the hearing. Adelstein=20
said he had not been allowed to talk with a=20
staffer who had been dealing with minority=20
issues. Martin countered that he was free to talk=20
with Desai, who was his point person on the=20
issue, while Adelstein had wanted to talk to the=20
person who had overseen those issues under his=20
predecessor, which Martin said would not have=20
given Adelstein a sense of where the Martin commission was.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495948.html?rssid=3D193
* Copps Statement: "You are going to hear a lot=20
of nice words about localism today. About how=20
localism is one of the core values of broadcast=20
regulation. About how from the earliest days of=20
broadcasting, we've required licensees to serve=20
the needs and interests of their local=20
communities. About how localism is good for=20
viewers, good for business, and good for the=20
future of our democracy. And it's all true. But=20
my greatest fear is that all those nice words=20
will float into the ether and we'll walk away and=20
congratulate ourselves that we've struck a blow=20
for localism. Meanwhile, consolidation continues=20
to choke the lifeblood out of localism, with its=20
outsourced news, homogenized play lists and=20
distant ownership. Meanwhile, consolidation=20
denigrates diversity, denies minorities and=20
women, and diminishes our already-distorted=20
democratic dialogue. It seems to get worse with=20
almost each passing week. I, for one, can wait=20
no longer. If we truly believe in localism - if=20
it's not just lip service - the time has come to do something about it."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277753A1.doc
* Adelstein Statement: "The lack of adequate=20
advance public notice of today's hearing raises=20
real concerns about how serious we are about=20
getting public input. Despite unanimous approval=20
weeks ago to hold this hearing today, it was not=20
announced to the public until the latest possible=20
moment allowed by law - late, under the dark of=20
night, just five business days ago. This is not=20
the way a government agency should conduct the people's business."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277769A1.doc
* Tate Statement: "It is the local news outlets=20
that know our communities best. They provide the=20
types of information on which local citizens=20
rely-local weather and traffic, high school=20
football scores, community events, school=20
programs, local political races, the list could=20
go on and on. They are also the=20
first-responders in times of crisis. Whether=20
crime, weather disasters, or public health=20
emergencies, local news outlets are often the=20
first to communicate critical information to the public."
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277754A1.doc
* McDowell Statement: "Are broadcasters providing=20
this community with the local information and=20
support it needs? Are broadcast stations still=20
your primary source for local news and=20
information? Is the Internet, with blogs and=20
other alternative sources of content, really=20
competing with traditional broadcasting for local=20
coverage? Armed with this information - which=20
only you can provide - we at the FCC can analyze=20
today's media marketplace and determine if and how our rules should change."
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277761A1.doc

LINKS TO TESTIMONY

* MAP President Testifies Before FCC Localism Hearing (Andrew Jay Schwartzm=
an)
"Effective local service requires institutional=20
and personal attachments to the community. It=20
requires a diverse workforce that is capable of=20
conveying the many different perspectives found=20
in each community. There is no way to document=20
the qualitative impact of having a station=20
operated locally by individuals citizens who live=20
in the community and expect to remain there."
http://www.mediaaccess.org/press/10-31-2007-AJSTestimony.pdf
* Testimony at FCC Hearing Blasts Flawed FCC Research (Free Press)
The panelists were united in their opposition to=20
Martin=92s proposed changes, which would remove=20
longstanding limits on media ownership. And they=20
warned that the agency=92s accelerated timetable=20
was ignoring popular input and the available=20
evidence. =93Until the Commission provides a=20
detailed analysis of the impact of ownership=20
limits on localism, it should not issue a final=20
rule,=94 said Mark Cooper, director of research at=20
the Consumer Federation of America. =93Simply=20
rolling it all into one humungous order will do a=20
disservice to the good, hard work that went into=20
the localism initiative and put us back at square one.=94
http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=3D296
* Bob Edwards Urges =91Public Interest, not=20
Corporate Profitability=92 as FCC Considers Media Ownership Rules
Citing examples of how the 1996 deregulation of=20
radio ownership harmed local interests, radio=20
host Bob Edwards told the Federal Communications=20
Commission that if they =93further deregulate media=20
in this country, networks, broadcast stations,=20
and newspapers will continue to consolidate,=20
resulting in fewer voices heard by citizens.=94
http://www.aftra.org/press/pr_2007_10_31_edwards_fcc.html

INTERNET/BROADBAND

FCC RELEASES DATA ON HIGH-SPEED SERVICES FOR INTERNET ACCESS
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
The Federal Communications Commission released=20
new data on high-speed connections to the=20
Internet in the United States. Twice a year, all=20
facilities-based broadband providers are required=20
to report to the Commission basic information=20
about their service offerings and types of=20
customers pursuant to the FCC=92s local telephone=20
competition and broadband data gathering program=20
(FCC Form 477). These statistics reflect data as=20
of December 31, 2006. 1) High-speed lines=20
increased by 27% during the second half of 2006.=20
2) Of the 82.5 million total high-speed lines=20
reported as of December 31, 2006, 58.2 million=20
served primarily residential end users. 3) The=20
FCC estimates that high-speed DSL connections=20
were available to 79% of the households to whom=20
incumbent LECs could provide local telephone=20
service as of December 31, 2006, and that=20
high-speed cable modem service was available to=20
96% of the households to whom cable system=20
operators could provide cable TV service. 4)=20
Providers list the Zip Codes in which they have=20
at least one high-speed connection in service to=20
an end user, and over 99% of Zip Codes were listed by at least one provider.
http://www.fcc.gov/HSPD103107.pdf
* High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2006
http://www.fcc.gov/103107.pdf

OFFICIAL: RURAL INTERNET PROGRAM IS FLAWED
[SOURCE: Technology Daily 10/23, AUTHOR: David Hatch]
The administrator of a federal loan program that=20
supports the rollout of high-speed Internet=20
access to rural areas told Congress that the=20
effort is flawed and needs to be overhauled. "As=20
with any young program, there have been bumps in=20
the road," Curtis Anderson, deputy administrator=20
for the Agriculture Department's Rural Utilities=20
Service, told the House Appropriations=20
Agriculture Subcommittee. One of those bumps has=20
been a dearth of loans to promote the build-out=20
of broadband infrastructure to unserved areas.=20
Anderson conceded that few companies seek=20
assistance for that purpose because it is=20
difficult to craft viable business models for=20
repayment. He also said the RUS does not always=20
dispense all of its annual funding.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/2007/10/rural_internet_program_is_flaw.html

STATES STEP IN TO CLOSE THE BROADBAND GAP
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Corey Boles corey.boles( at )dowjones.com]
Tired of waiting for the federal government to=20
act on President Bush's promise to make=20
high-speed Internet connections available to=20
every home, a number of states have taken on the=20
task themselves. Kentucky has been so successful=20
-- the state says 95% of its households can now=20
buy broadband service if they want -- that=20
federal lawmakers and regulators want to=20
replicate its program nationwide. Rep. Zack Space=20
(D-OH) recently introduced legislation to provide=20
grants for states to follow Kentucky's lead, and=20
a Senate version of the bill has passed the=20
Commerce Committee. In October, the House Energy=20
and Commerce Committee passed a bill sponsored by=20
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) that would compel the=20
Federal Communications Commission to pinpoint=20
where broadband service is available -- and where=20
it isn't. In his campaign for nationwide=20
broadband service, Rep Space has formed the=20
Connecting Appalachia Broadband Task Force, a=20
group of various officials, local leaders and=20
telecom industry representatives to bring=20
broadband to rural Appalachia. "The FCC needs to=20
do more. Our government as a whole needs to=20
recognize the importance of broadband Internet=20
access," he says. "We should be treating=20
broadband with as much importance as we did the=20
electrification of the country in the 1930s." Why=20
the urgency? Rep Space worries that the U.S.=20
hasn't kept pace with other developed countries,=20
and that rural districts like his will lose jobs.=20
The Paris-based Organization for Economic=20
Cooperation and Development's most recent ranking=20
of countries' progress in broadband deployment=20
put the U.S. in 15th place out of 30 countries as=20
of December 2006, down from 10th place a year earlier.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119388040866078585.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace
(requires subscription)

FCC EXPANDS LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY TO VoIP
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
The right of consumers to keep the same, familiar=20
phone number when switching to a new telephone=20
company was expanded by the Federal=20
Communications Commission, in an Order that will=20
further ensure consumers' opportunity to choose a=20
telephone service provider based on quality,=20
price and service. The FCC made clear that the=20
obligation to provide local number portability=20
extends to interconnected Voice over Internet=20
Protocol providers and the telecommunications=20
carriers that obtain numbers for them. This=20
action was, in part, a response to numerous=20
complaints by consumers about their inability to=20
port numbers to or from interconnected VoIP=20
providers. The FCC also initiated a Notice of=20
Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on additional VoIP numbering issues.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277752A1.doc

CABLE

CABLE GETS VIDEO-FRANCHISE RELIEF FROM FCC
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
In a 3-2 vote with FCC Commissioners Michael=20
Copps and Jonathan Adelstein dissenting, the=20
Federal Communications Commission Wednesday=20
extended immediate video-franchise relief to=20
incumbent cable operators. The FCC order adopted=20
Wednesday prevents local franchising authorities=20
from "unreasonably refusing to award competitive=20
cable franchises." The timing and build-out=20
findings of the original order do not apply,=20
however, the FCC said, since "the rationale for=20
these provisions, that they serve as a barrier to=20
entry, are not applicable." Commissioners=20
Adelstein said, ""We pick up with the mistakes=20
that were made in the first report and order,=20
providing future disruption, confusion and=20
complication to the local franchising process."=20
He called the relief "arbitrary and capricious."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495913.html?rssid=3D193
* FCC Adopts Rules to Ensure Reasonable=20
Franchising Process for Incumbent Video Providers
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277772A1.doc

FCC'S NEW CABLE RULES: ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK?
[SOURCE: Lasar's Letter on the FCC, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
Media reform groups offered mixed reviews at best=20
to the Federal Communications Commission's latest=20
moves on cable competition and video franchise=20
authority. "Today, the FCC gives to the American=20
people with one hand, but takes back with the=20
other," declared Harold Feld of the Media Access=20
Project after today's decisions on competition=20
and franchising. In December of 2006 the FCC=20
prohibited. Local Franchising Authorities (LFAs)=20
from setting "unreasonable build out=20
requirements" for new applicants and put ceilings=20
on franchise fees. The agency also set a 90 day=20
time limit on the amount of time an LFA can take=20
to negotiate a franchise with a new video=20
provider. The decision extends those restrictions=20
to incumbent video providers as well as new=20
applicants. MAP's Feld praised the video=20
competition ruling, but said that the franchising=20
move further deprives local communities of means=20
to solve complex cable access problems that more=20
competition may not address. "Local franchising=20
authorities provided a needed local advocate and=20
counterweight against the power of these=20
multi-billion dollar companies, who all too=20
frequently ignore the needs of individual=20
citizens or even whole neighborhoods of less=20
'desirable' customers," Feld said. The Alliance=20
for Community Media also issued a statement=20
condemning the order. "This ruling is one more=20
attempt to destroy even the most humble aspects=20
of community control, self-determination or=20
diversity in media," the statement concluded. The=20
Commission approved the measure by a vote of=20
three to two, both of the FCC's Democrats voting=20
no. Jonathan Adelstein accused the agency of=20
turning the video franchise process "into a=20
regulatory minefield for local governments, and=20
that will likely impact the ability of local=20
government for provide critical, state-of-the-art=20
services when it matters most."
http://www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/495

FCC BANS EXCLUSIVE CABLE DEALS AT APARTMENT COMPLEXES
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: David Lieberman]
Trying to promote pay-TV competition and keep=20
prices in check, the Federal Communications=20
Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to wipe=20
out deals giving cable operators exclusive access=20
to apartments, condos and other centrally managed=20
real estate developments. "People who live in=20
apartments deserve the same choices as people who=20
live in the suburbs," says FCC Chairman Kevin=20
Martin. He notes that more than 25% of Americans=20
live in apartments =97 including 40% of all homes=20
headed by Hispanics or African-Americans. Backed=20
by groups such as Consumers Union, Martin says he=20
was moved to act by seeing basic cable rates soar=20
93% since 1996, when they were largely=20
deregulated. In addition, operators have=20
accelerated efforts to sign exclusive agreements=20
with landlords and tenant and owner associations=20
as muscular competitors, led by phone giant=20
Verizon, began to offer video services. "Some of=20
(the deals) lasted forever," Chairman Martin=20
says. "Many of them lasted for many years, even=20
if they didn't last in perpetuity." That's a=20
problem, supporters of the FCC decision say,=20
because companies that also offer Internet and=20
phone services as well as TV are more potent=20
competitors than satellite services that on their=20
own just provide video. Operators says the FCC=20
decision may end up hurting consumers.=20
Subscribers in apartment buildings and condos=20
"will lose the benefit of significant concessions=20
building owners have been able to negotiate on=20
their behalf," says Comcast's Sena=20
Fitzmaurice. They also question how many people=20
will see a change from the FCC decision. At least=20
17 states, including New York, Illinois,=20
Massachusetts, Florida and Pennsylvania as well=20
as the District of Columbia, already restrict=20
exclusive deals. "We're only talking about a=20
couple of million" people who might be affected,=20
says Bruce Leichtman, president at Leichtman=20
Research Group. "It's not a very big number."
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20071101/fcc01.art.htm
* FCC Orders Cable Firms To End Exclusivity Deals
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119384288664077717.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one
* Cable TV-apartment deals invalidated
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-cable1nov01,1,517739....
ry?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business
* FCC Votes Down Deals Between Cable Operators, Multiple-Dwelling Units
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495911.html?rssid=3D193
* FCC Bans Exclusive MDU Deals
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6495955.html?rssid=3D196
* FCC Adopts Rules to Increase Choice and=20
Competition Among Video Providers for Consumers=20
Residing in Multiple Dwelling Units
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277763A1.doc

BROADCASTING

BROADCASTERS: DTV PSA MANDATE UNNECESSARY
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Broadcasters told the House Telecommunications &=20
Internet Subcommittee Wednesday that neither=20
Congress nor the Federal Communications=20
Commission needs to force broadcasters to air=20
digital-TV-transition education public-service=20
announcements. House Commerce Committee Chairman=20
John Dingell (D-MI) praised the broadcasters'=20
effort but also said it should include "a=20
sufficient number of public-service announcements=20
aired at times when they are most likely to be=20
seen by viewers, including primetime."=20
Broadcasters have said there would be primetime=20
PSAs, but they would not quantify them, saying=20
that the campaign was tailored to each market. He=20
also said broadcasters were willing to report to=20
the FCC quarterly and to modify the campaign if=20
need be. Wednesday's hearing featured a variety=20
of industry stakeholders, following up on an Oct.=20
17 hearing with government officials.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6496192.html?rssid=3D193
* Markey Holds 3rd DTV Hearing
"In a little over a year, millions of American=20
consumers will find out if the digital television=20
transition is a trick or a treat. Will stores=20
trick them into buying equipment they don't need?=20
In February 2009 will they see their screens=20
summarily turn as black as a Halloween cat? Will=20
they long for their old analog signal, even with=20
its friendly ghosting? Or conversely, will it be=20
a wonderful treat? Will it be a bagful full of=20
digital delights - including the eye candy of a=20
better, pristine picture, breathtaking high=20
definition programming, or perhaps multiple=20
streams of new services and channels?"
http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D...
2&Itemid=3D141

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

KEY SENATORS RAISE DOUBTS ON EAVESDROPPING IMMUNITY
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Eric Lichtblau]
The leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee=20
said Wednesday that they had serious concerns=20
about a plan for legal immunity to phone carriers=20
that participated in the National Security Agency=20
domestic eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11=20
attacks. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of=20
Vermont and chairman of the panel, said at a=20
hearing that the immunity proposal amounted to=20
=93an after the fact free pass=94 for utilities that=20
might have violated customers=92 privacy=20
rights. The ranking Republican on the committee,=20
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said people now=20
suing the carriers =93ought to have their day in=20
court.=94 Their opposition to the immunity=20
proposal, while not unexpected, complicates the=20
Bush administration=92s hopes for passage of a bill=20
to insulate the carriers from legal liability for=20
participating in the eavesdropping.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/washington/01nsa.html?ref=3Dtodayspaper
(requires registration)
* Roadblock for Telecom Immunity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR200710...
3126.html
(requires registration)
* Wiretap Battle Heats Up
Vermont regulators allowed an investigation to=20
proceed into how telecommunications companies=20
cooperate with government surveillance, opening a=20
small but potentially significant window into the=20
federal government's post-9/11 spying efforts.=20
The White House has been urging Congress to grant=20
telecom companies legal immunity, arguing that=20
allowing lawsuits or state investigations to=20
proceed would pose a national security risk by=20
revealing details of government surveillance=20
methods. The investigation by Vermont's Public=20
Service Board now becomes part of the political=20
debate in Washington over granting retroactive=20
immunity to companies, including AT&T Inc. and=20
Verizon Communications Inc., which face lawsuits=20
for allegedly aiding surveillance by the National=20
Security Agency without court warrants. The=20
immunity issue is also feeding doubts among some=20
Democrats about President Bush's pick to head the=20
Justice Department, which writes the legal=20
opinions underpinning surveillance activities.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387854439978505.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one
(requires subscription)

ADVERTISING

FTC TO REVIEW ONLINE ADS AND PRIVACY
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Louise Story]
The Federal Trade Commission will hold meetings=20
today and tomorrow about online privacy. The=20
questions they will entertain include how much=20
control people need or want over the vast trove=20
of information that corporate America routinely=20
collects about people as they click from site to=20
site on the Internet. In advance of the F.T.C.=20
meetings, a coalition of consumer groups called=20
yesterday for a do-not-track list that would=20
permit people to opt out of so-called behavioral=20
tracking programs, which use data about a=20
consumer=92s Web travels to deliver relevant ads.=20
Separately, the AOL division of Time Warner=20
announced that it would enhance its system that=20
lets people remove themselves from tracking=20
databases. Opting out does not reduce the number=20
of ads; instead people would receive generic=20
ones. Most Web tracking is done anonymously, and=20
marketing firms are typically aware only of the=20
sites someone has visited, not their name or=20
address. But as Web tracking technology grows=20
more sophisticated, experts on digital privacy=20
say it is inevitable that marketers will know not=20
only which sites somebody has visited, but also who is doing the Web surfin=
g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/technology/01Privacy.html?ref=3Dtodays...
er
(requires registration)
* 'Do Not Track' Registry Proposed for Web Use
Nine groups -- including the Center for Democracy=20
and Technology, the Consumer Federation of=20
America and the World Privacy Forum -- proposed=20
the creation of a Do Not Track list similar to=20
the Do Not Call phone list, allowing people to=20
prevent companies from tracking which Web sites=20
they visit. This proposal comes as large Internet=20
companies are looking to increase the tracking of=20
users' online behavior to tailor ads to their=20
interests. The FTC does not regulate ad networks'=20
privacy policies, but a group called the Network=20
Advertising Initiative, comprising 11 advertiser=20
members, said the industry polices itself. People=20
can opt out of advertising by downloading a small=20
piece of data known as a cookie. Privacy=20
advocates say self-regulation has not been sufficient for several reasons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR200710...
1000.html
(requires registration)
* Key Privacy Groups Propose Do Not Track List
CDT joined with a coalition of privacy advocates=20
on Wednesday to recommend an ambitious set of=20
proposals intended to give consumers greater=20
control over their personal data and to offset=20
the impact of pervasive behavioral tracking.=20
Included in the recommendations is a call to=20
create a national "Do Not Track List" that would=20
provide consumers with a simple tool for opting=20
out of behavioral tracking. CDT joined with=20
Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of=20
America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,=20
Privacy Activism, Public Information Research,=20
Privacy Journal, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse,=20
and the World Privacy Forum in crafting the=20
proposal, which is timed to coincide with the=20
start Thursday of a two-day Federal Trade=20
Commission workshop on behavioral targeting.
Consumer Rights and Protections in the Behavioral=20
Advertising Sector:=20
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20071031consumerprotectionsbehavioral.pdf
Press Release: http://www.cdt.org/press/20071031press.php
Illustration of Do Not Track List:=20
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20071031donottrack.pdf
* Privacy groups seek 'Do Not Track' list for Web users
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-track1nov01,1,5358231...
ory?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business
* Privacy groups seek "do not track" Web list
http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN3133606720071031
* Privacy Groups Propose Do-Not-Track List
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=3D121643

QUICKLY

Locked vs. Unlocked: Opening Up Choice
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Cyrus Farivar]
Most phones sold in the United States are locked=20
into the carrier that sold them. Nearly all=20
mobile phone providers discount the price of the=20
handset in exchange for a fixed contract. But=20
even some phones sold at full price without=20
contracts remain locked. But that has not stopped=20
many from unlocking phones, either with the=20
permission of the carrier or, as is more commonly=20
the case, without it. More and more Americans are=20
becoming aware of the issues surrounding locked=20
phones in general. Though there are questions=20
about the legality of the practice, more carriers=20
are offering customers the option, even though it=20
means a customer can use that phone with another carrier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/technology/personaltech/01basics.html?...
=3Dtodayspaper
(requires registration)

Have a Laptop? You, Too, Can Sway New Hampshire Race
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Amy Schatz Amy.Schatz( at )wsj.com]
A look at how bloggers are influencing the race for President.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119385722919677942.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one
(requires subscription)

Users at Newspaper Sites Still On Rise
[SOURCE: Editor&Publisher, AUTHOR: Jennifer Saba]
More than 59.6 million people visited a newspaper=20
Web site in July 2007 -- a 9% increase compared=20
to the same period a year ago, according to new=20
data released by the Newspaper Association of=20
America. The organization said it was the second=20
largest monthly audience since it began tracking=20
online data -- from Nielsen Online (owned by=20
E&P's parent company) -- in 2004. May 2007 claims=20
the most newspaper monthly visitors at 60.3=20
million. Overall Web traffic for newspaper sites=20
for the month of August then slowed slightly to=20
59.2 million people and in September tit dropped again to 58.1 million.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...
t_id=3D1003665638
--------------------------------------------------------------