September 2010

Most of the Syrian media is still owned by the state. Privately owned media outlets became legal in 2001, as the socialist economy slowly began to liberalize following the accession of President Bashar al-Assad. But much of the sector is owned by members of the Syrian "oligarchy" — relatives of Mr. Assad and other top government officials. All of it is subject to intimidation and heavy-handed control. The basic "red lines" are well known: no criticism of the president and his family or the security services, no touching delicate issues like Syria's Kurdish minority or the Alawites, a religious minority to which Mr. Assad belongs. Foreign journalists who violate these rules are regularly banned from the country (a fact that constrains coverage of Syria in this and other newspapers). But the exact extent of what is forbidden is left deliberately unclear, and that vagueness encourages fear and self-censorship, many journalists here say.

Over the past several weeks, House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) have sought to reach bipartisan agreement on legislation that would protect and promote an open Internet.

The efforts were supported by groups that have long been at odds on this issue: phone and cable companies, technology companies, and consumer and open-Internet groups. Our proposal was designed to be an interim measure to protect net neutrality while Congress considers a permanent solution.

It contained four key consumer protections that would:

• Restore the FCC's authority to prevent blocking of Internet content, applications, and services, which was struck down by the court in the Comcast decision;
• Prevent phone and cable companies from unjustly or unreasonably discriminating against any lawful Internet traffic;
• Prohibit wireless broadband providers from blocking websites, as well as applications that compete with voice or video conferencing, while preserving the FCC's authority to adopt additional safeguards under its existing authorities; and
• Direct the FCC to issue transparency regulations so consumers know the price, performance, and network management practices of their broadband providers.

Under the proposal, the FCC could begin enforcing these open Internet rules immediately - with maximum fines increased from $75,000 to $2,000,000 for violations.

And the approach would provide the phone and cable companies with protection from the threat of reclassification for two years. Under this proposal, both sides would emerge as winners. Consumers would win protections that preserve the openness of the Internet, while the Internet service providers would receive relief from their fears of reclassification.

This legislative initiative was predicated on going forward only if we had full bipartisan support in our Committee. We included the Republican staff in our deliberations and made clear that we were prepared to introduce our compromise legislation if we received the backing of Ranking Member Barton and Ranking Member Stearns. With great regret, I must report that Ranking Member Barton has informed me that support for this legislation will not be forthcoming at this time. The bottom line is that we must protect the open Internet. If Congress can't act, the FCC must.

The Senate Judiciary Committee announced changes to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act after an uproar by Silicon Valley engineers, Internet service providers and public interest groups that the legislation would lead to censorship.

Proposed amendments include:

• The Justice Department would not longer be required to publish the domain names of sites that counterfeit products and violate copyright laws.
• Internet service providers wouldn't be required to modify network or facilities to comply with an order to look up domain names and shut them down.
• Internet service providers would be given some breathing room on domain name takedowns with new language that requires them to "act as expeditiously as reasonable," according to a summary of the amendment.
• The new bill would provide more protection from legal liability for third-party registrars and ISPs. The previous version of the bill held them explicitly liable for allowing pirated material on their networks or to be registered.
• The amendment requires the Attorney General to work with law enforcement on a process that allows agencies to coordinate on investigations.

While the 2010 midterm congressional elections dominated media coverage last week, the public focused more on news about the nation's struggling economy.

Nearly a quarter (23%) of the public says they followed news about the economy more closely than any other major story. Just 6% say they followed news about this year's congressional elections most closely, according to the latest News Interest Index survey of 1,010 adults conducted Sept. 23-26 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The midterm election campaign accounted for 25% of news coverage, almost double the 13% given to news about the economy, according to a separate analysis by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). More than four-in-ten Americans (43%) say they followed economic news very closely, compared with 25% who tracked campaign news very closely. About as many Democrats (26%) as Republicans (30%) say they are following campaign news very closely; 22% of independents say the same.