Benton RSS Feed

"Our broadband policy should be the same whether we are ranked 1st, 15th, or 115th: Willing investors should be able to offer services to willing customers all under full protection of predictable laws with prices set by supply and demand. That, in a nutshell, is current American broadband policy, and it does not need to be changed."
-- Former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth

PUBLIC HEARING ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
The Federal Communications Commission announced that the second public hearing on media ownership issues will be held in Nashville, Tennessee on Monday, December 11, 2006. At the Commission's first public hearing in Los Angeles, the FCC heard from a large number of citizens about the current state of the media and specific issues facing that local market. Similarly, this second hearing will provide an opportunity for those in the Nashville area to broadly discuss media ownership issues as well as those of concern to their community. Further details on the public hearing will be released at a later date. Commissioner Deborah Tate said, "I am extremely pleased by the announcement that the Federal Communications Commission will hold its second media ownership hearing in Nashville, my hometown, next month. Known as "Music City, USA" because of its vibrant entertainment industry, Nashville is home to some of the greatest songwriters and musicians in the world. It is hard to think of a more appropriate location for discussing how the Commission's rules may affect these artists and their audience. I look forward to hearing from the music industry, the media, and the public."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268469A1.doc

* Commissioner Tate
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268465A1.doc

L'ETAT, C'EST MOI
[SOURCE: The Deal 10/11, AUTHOR: Ron Oral]
My high school and college French is a little rusty, so I'm going with "I am the state." Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin seems to be having a tough time with the entanglements of democracy. In a recent speech, Chairman Martin mused whether the five-person panel that decides the agency's biggest issues should receive their walking papers and be replaced with a one-person administrator who could respond more nimbly to evolving technology and be free from those messy partisan and ideological disputes that can delay critical FCC decisions. "In light of the fast changes that are occurring in technology, a single administrator could be much better at keeping up and responding to technological changes," Martin told attorneys at an American Bar Association Administrative Law Conference luncheon in Washington. "There has been a lot of debate in policy circles about whether the agency's bipartisan nature actually contributes to the lack of response time to technology changes that are occurring today." Converting the FCC into an executive branch administrator, following the structure of the Food and Drug Administration, means one political appointee would ultimately make all decisions affecting U.S. communications interests. Such a "communications czar" would replace the existing FCC, which consists of commissioners of the two major parties who debate controversial issues and hash out compromises. Many communications lawyers so far have jeered Martin's notions. "There isn't anybody who wouldn't rather be the philosopher king than have to negotiate with other people," says Harold Feld, director of Washington-based public interest law firm Media Access Project. "The telecom industry is so critical to our infrastructure and national security that the idea of it being held captive to whoever is running the executive branch is extremely troubling." Chairman Martin is also unhappy with the current system of judicial oversight of the agency. He has indicated that he would prefer to have one U.S. appeals court designated to receive all appeals of agency rules, a change that would replace a complex lottery that can send a challenge of FCC rules to any of 12 different appeals courts around the country.
http://www.thedeal.com/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1162525544531&pagename=...

DON'T IMPORT BAD BROADBAND POLICIES
[SOURCE: Harold Furchtgott-Roth]
[Commentary] Proponents of a new federal broadband policy have hailed the results of a United Nations study that finds America is ranked 15th or lower in the world for broadband services. Washington activists make three arguments in support of a new policy: 1) America is behind the rest of the world in broadband. 2) Other countries are ahead because their broadband policies favor competition. 3) More broadband leads to greater economic activity. Each of these arguments is wrong. The rationale for any broadband policy should not be that it causes economic growth, contrary to populist claims. Broadband penetration does not predict economic growth. Although America ranks only 12th in broadband penetration, we have a higher rate of economic growth than the vast majority of countries ranked ahead of us. This result is not surprising because broadband services still account for only a small share of economic activity in every country. Economic growth depends on many factors, and broadband deployment is not one of them. Paradoxically, although lower taxes cause economic growth, many of those calling for a broadband policy advocate higher taxes. Moreover, most other countries, with higher taxes and a greater inclination to intervene in markets, grow more slowly. Little would frighten investors, slow investment, and harm consumers more than adoption of a new federal broadband policy. Our broadband policy should be the same whether we are ranked 1st, 15th, or 115th: Willing investors should be able to offer services to willing customers all under full protection of predictable laws with prices set by supply and demand. That, in a nutshell, is current American broadband policy, and it does not need to be changed.
http://furchtgott-roth.com/news.php?id=115