October 23, 2006 The Benton Foundation and the Social Science Research Council released four independent academic studies on the impact of media consolidation in the U.S.
TEN TEARS AGO...
Holding the Line on Phone Rivalry
[SOURCE: Washington Post 10/23/1996, AUTHOR: Mike Mills]
Efforts of GTE to block FCC's new local competition rules. GTE is largest local phone company in US. GTE is also lobbying in states for rate hikes so that it can deal with increased competition. Other local telephone providers are facing a trade-off: they will be able to offer customers long-distance services after they negotiate interconnection agreements. GTE is already free to offer long-distance and has no incentive to cooperate in proceedings to open its markets to competition.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/21942703.html?dids=219...
DEADLINE NEARS FOR COMMENTS ON OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Ira Teinowitz]
The debate over whether the Federal Communications Commission should ease media ownership rules is being played out in filings with the Commission for today's initial deadline for comments. In filings late this week, the Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Media Institute suggested that the FCC ease its rules while some consumer and writers groups reiterated their opposition to an easing.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=10931
(requires free registration)
* Media Comments Keep On Coming
As of Friday night, 168,134 comments had been filed in the FCC's media ownership review, with more to come before the end of the day Monday, Oct. 23, which marks the end of the initial comment period. While the vast majority of the comments appeared to be form e-mail complaints from members of anti-media actvist groups warning of further consolidation. There will be more opportunity for comment through the beginning of December, and beyond as the commission tries to recraft generally deregulatory rule changes remanded by a federal appeals court in 2004.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6383730.html?display=Breaking...
NEW OWNERSHIP STUDIES EXPECTED
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Benton Foundation and the Social Science Research Council will release four media ownership studies Monday concerning radio, minority and women-owned media, minority news consumption, and TV/newspaper cross-ownership's impact on public affairs. Gloria Tristani, former FCC commissioner with the Benton Foundation, says the goal is not to inundate the commission, but to "help inform policymakers with good data."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6383555.html?display=Breaking...
* See "Does Bigger Media Equal Better Media?" for more info on the release:
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/3770
See also --
* Studies Note Media Consolidation As Debate On The Issue Intensifies
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-MLVM1161348543266.html
NETWORKS AREN'T WAL-MARTS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Jonathan Rintels, Center for Creative Voices in Media]
[Commentary] B&C’s October 9 editorial “Take Risksâ€, concerning the complaints made against Big Media at the FCC’s public hearings in L.A., fails to mention the primary reason the FCC was holding public hearings in the first place: because broadcasters who have been granted a license to use the public’s airwaves, with no payment to the public, are required by law to operate in the public interest. Analogizing broadcasting to Wal-Mart while ignoring this critical fact is misleading and inapposite. The editorial suggests that creatives blocked by the networks from access to the public airwaves should instead create for the Internet and YouTube. Many are doing just that. But the existence of the Internet does not in any way relieve broadcasters of their obligation to operate in the public interest. As David Rehr, president of the NAB, said the day after the FCC’s public hearings, “By any measure, broadcast remains the undisputed leader in news and entertainment -- by far.â€
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6383684.html?display=Opinion
NEWS CORP RENEWS 'POISON PILL' DEFENCE
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Joshua Chaffin]
News Corp shareholders on Friday agreed to extend a special “poison pill†provision that was designed to protect the media group from a hostile takeover by rival Liberty Media. At a New Corp annual meeting that often veered into questions about the personal politics of the company’s chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, the proposal to extend the measure for an additional year won 57 per cent of the votes cast. At the same time, Mr Murdoch said he believed that he was nearing a deal with John Malone, the Liberty Media chief executive, who began to build up a 19 per cent stake in News Corp two years ago. That move took the Murdochs by surprise, and raised speculation that Mr Malone might be moving to take control of a global media giant that Mr Murdoch built from a family-owned chain of newspapers in Australia.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f2835478-606b-11db-a716-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)
SPREADING THE BROADBAND REVOLUTION
[SOURCE: New York Times 10/21, AUTHOR: Former-FCC Chairman Bill Kennard]
[Commentary] Any serious discussion of the future of the Internet should start with a basic fact: broadband is transforming every facet of communications, from entertainment and telephone services to delivery of vital services like health care. But this also means that the digital divide, once defined as the chasm separating those who had access to narrowband dial-up Internet and those who didn't, has become a broadband digital divide. The nation should have a full-scale policy debate about the direction of the broadband Internet, especially about how to make sure that all Americans get access to broadband connections. As chairman of the F.C.C., I put into place many policies to bridge the narrowband digital divide. The broadband revolution poses similar challenges for policymakers. America should be a world leader in broadband technology and deployment, and we must ensure that no group or region in America is denied access to high-speed connections. We are falling short in both areas. Congress could significantly expand broadband access by: 1) reforming the universal service fund to ensure that broadband reaches into rural, low income and other underserved communities and 2) putting all broadband providers on a level playing field. Congress punted on both of these issues this year in large part because of the polarizing Net Neutrality debate. Policymakers should rise above the Net Neutrality debate and focus on what America truly requires from the Internet: getting affordable broadband access to those who need it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/opinion/21kennard.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(requires registration)
JESSE JACKSON PUSHES AT&T/BELLSOUTH MERGER
[SOURCE: Lasar's Letter on the FCC, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
The Reverend Jesse Jackson has filed a statement with the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to approve AT&T's proposed takeover of BellSouth. "I firmly believe that the merger would benefit people of color and all Americans, in the years to come," concludes Jackson's letter, sent to the Commission on October 11th. Jackson filed on behalf of the Rainbow Push Coalition, of which he is President. Jackson's statement argued that the proposed union will allow the new telecom giant to put more money into broadband and offer cheaper rates to customers. "The 'digital divide' in this country is very real: technology and training is expensive, and the lack of access to it is creating a segmented society between those who are connected and those who are not," Jackson wrote. "Lower broadband prices and more investment in broadband networks would help extend new technologies to low-income communities and propel the next generation of great leaders and young minds into the digital era." Not all advocates for the urban poor agree with Jackson's stance. Earlier this year the mayors of New Orleans, Detroit, and Compton, California asked the FCC to deny AT&T's proposed merger with BellSouth, alleging that the telecom giant has a history of redlining minority regions.
http://lasarletter.com/freepage.php?id=200610201
See also --
* Black city mayors oppose AT&T/BellSouth merger (June 13, 2006)
http://lasarletter.com/freepage.php?id=200606131
MORE CONCESSIONS FROM AT&T SOUGHT
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: John Dunbar]
Consumer groups say concessions offered by AT&T as it seeks government approval of its buyout of BellSouth Corp. fall far short of what's needed for the deal to be in the public interest. Opponents of the deal would like to see AT&T beef up its offer in three main areas: 1) Stronger assurances by the company that it will not discriminate against certain kinds of Internet traffic, a concept known as "network neutrality." 2) Offer "naked DSL," or stand-alone digital subscriber line service, that is priced competitively. 3) Lower prices for "special access" customers -- service offered to capacity-hungry customers like large businesses, Internet service providers and others, that guarantee a dedicated high-capacity link to distribute voice and data.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4277075.html
INVESTMENT FIRM SAYS DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WOULD PUSH NET NEUTRALITY, HURT RBOCS
[SOURCE: Network World, AUTHOR: Jim Duffy]
In a research report issued last week, UBS Warburg says a win for Congressional Democrats in November could be a "negative" for large telephone companies. “If Democrats control Congress, the ‘net neutrality’ issue will likely come to the fore, especially in the Senate,†UBS Warburg states in the report. “They would likely make a concerted effort to pass strict net neutrality legislation that prevents the Bells from fully monetizing their large investments in fiber networks.†Strict net neutrality essentially requires the carriers to treat all packets equally, preventing them from offering tiered levels of service to online content and application providers, the UBS Warburg report states. This would also prevent them from providing additional high-value services such as security, advanced streaming and multicasting, the firm says. “It may also require them to interconnect their IP networks on a ‘nondiscriminatory’ basis, which would mean a complete re-working of the current peering system while bringing the government regulation to the IP networks for the first time,†the firm’s report states. A spokesman for the It's Our Net Coalition, a proponent of net neutrality, would not make a prediction on what might happen if the Democrats swept Congress. But he says the UBS Warburg report "mischaracterizes" the issue of net neutrality with the statement that all packets be treated equally. "Treating VoIP traffic differently from other traffic is fine as long as all VoIP traffic is treated equally," the coalition spokesman says.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/101906-net-neutrality.html?fsrc=ne...
© 1994-2026 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.
