Benton RSS Feed
SO MUCH TO DO, SO LITTLE TIME... SO CONGRESS SKIPS TOWN
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commntary] As Congress settles into its month-long August break, it's hard to shake the feeling that the House and Senate haven't earned their time off. Instead of tending to basics and working out differences on divisive but vital issues such as immigration, members have spent much of the past several months in political posturing and time-wasting debates over non-essential issues. One thing Congress must do each year is pass the annual spending bills that fund everything from the space program to border security. So far, the Senate has produced just one of the 11 appropriations bills. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has found it more important to fritter away scarce time on an obsessive quest to repeal the estate tax and on blatant pandering to social conservatives with proposed constitutional amendments on flag-burning and gay marriage. Even those who think those issues are crucial would have an easier time defending debate time for them if the Senate had done its mandatory work first.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060807/edtwo07.art.htm
So much to do, so little time … so Congress skips town
USF KEY TO FRANCHISE PASSAGE, SAYS ENSIGN
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Sen John Ensign (R-NV) said that the video franchise reform bill probably won't be able to pass unless expansion of the universal service fund (USF) remains in the bill. Its passage in any form is increasingly problematic, but he is still hopeful that constituents will contact their senators and push for the bill, which he says will boost price and service competition to cable, as well as Internet speeds and services. Sen Ensign cited the universal service provision's support from Senate Commerce Committee Co-chairmen Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye, as well as Democrat support for the provision, which would expand payments into the fund, which underwrites communications service to rural, underserved, and expensive-to-serve areas. Sen Ensign noted that the Senate bill had a number of "extraneous" provisions. But rather than suggesting paring them back to more closely resemble the already-passed House version, he said they were what would help get the bill to the floor if it makes it there, since they could pick up some votes from the individual legislators championing them. If the bill does not pass, some Republicans hope to use it as a campaign issue. Sen Ensign pointed out that the bill also includes improvement to first responder communications and that Democrats would then have to explain why they blocked that. Calling tough network neutrality provisions unnecessary and even harmful, Sen Ensign said they did not belong in the bill. He said the bill already protects the next garage-to-computer giant success story, but does not protect the business positions of now-large companies like Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft, who he says want to do so by regulating the Internet.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6359683?display=Breaking+News
** Text of the bill, passed by the Senate Commerce Committee on June 28, was finally released late last week. See http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/2173 **
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6359683?display=Breaking%20News
NEW JERSEY TO LET PHONE COMPANIES BECOME PAY TELEVISION PROVIDERS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: David Kocieniewski]
New Jersey on Friday became the sixth state to allow telephone companies to provide pay television service, setting the stage for head-to-head competition between telephone and cable companies for the state’s 2.5 million cable subscribers. The new law, which Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D) said was intended to offer consumers more choices and lower prices, will also ease telephone companies’ entry into the television market by allowing them to apply for a single statewide franchise license instead of negotiating with each of New Jersey’s 566 municipalities. It is the latest example of how converging technology is provoking furious competition among utilities across the country. The immediate beneficiary of the law is Verizon Communications, which will now be permitted to use the fiber-optic network it is building across the state. Verizon’s network currently reaches fewer than 500,000 homes, but the company has pledged to spend $1.5 billion to expand it to offer service to 3.5 million households by the end of 2008. The victory for Verizon and other telephone companies came after a lobbying and public relations battle against the state’s two major cable providers, Cablevision and Comcast. The cable companies had warned that by awarding telephone companies a statewide franchise, New Jersey would be depriving municipalities of tax revenues and the ability to regulate the service in their communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/nyregion/05cable.html
(requires registration)
New Jersey to Let Phone Companies Become Pay Television Providers
SATELLITE TV GROWTH IS LOSING ALTITUDE AS CABLE TAKES OFF
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal 8/5, AUTHOR: Julia Angwin julia.angwin@wsj.com and Andy Pasztor andy.pasztor@wsj.com]
A decade-long growth spurt for U.S. satellite-television broadcasters is sputtering amid a resurgent cable industry and changes in what consumers want from their TV providers. The nation's two leading satellite companies, DirecTV Group Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corp. are seeing a sharp slowdown in the number of new subscribers. In the last year, their gains have shrunk to half of what they were during the industry's heyday early in this decade, and they are projected to decline further. Meanwhile, the cable-TV industry, after years of seeing satellite steal market share and customers by pitching better service and more variety, is regaining ground. Companies like Time Warner Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp. are wooing customers by providing video, telephone and high-speed Internet services in an attractively priced "triple play" bundle. Technology differences prevent satellite providers from offering phone service and limit their ability to offer high-speed Internet access. The shift in fortunes reflects broader changes in the competitive TV landscape. Subscription services now can reach most of the nation's 110 million households. About 66.5 million homes are cable subscribers and 27 million use a satellite service. With popular channels now available on both platforms, services are growing increasingly commoditized.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115473942525727676.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115473942525727676.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
CABLE AND SATELLITE TV SET THEIR SIGHTS ON AIRWAVES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Matt Richtel & Ken Belson]
The biggest names in cable and satellite television are poised to get into mobile phone and wireless data services. On Wednesday, Time Warner, Comcast, Cox Communications, EchoStar Communications and DirecTV, a unit of the News Corporation, will be among the 168 qualified bidders in the government’s multibillion-dollar auction of radio spectrum, that precious commodity that allows voice calls and data to be sent over the airwaves. But these companies are not necessarily planning to use those frequencies for TV signals. Rather, they appear to be preparing to battle AT&T, Verizon Communications and other companies that sell traditional phone lines, broadband connections and wireless services — and are now diving into television. Though the cable and satellite providers declined to discuss their strategies, many analysts expect them to buy at least enough spectrum to build networks that will allow them to sell wireless Internet connections and mobile phone services. That would let the cable companies and, to a lesser degree, the satellite companies, complete a decade-long transformation: instead of just selling packages of TV channels, they are becoming one-stop shops with a full line of communications products.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/technology/07spectrum.html
(requires registration)
Cable and Satellite TV Set Their Sights on Airwaves
FCC STAFF REALLY STARTING TO GET HANG OF THIS "ENFORCEMENT" THING...
[SOURCE: Tales from the Sausage Factory, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] In another sign that the FCC has gotten serious in crackdown on cable abuse of market power -- and that this message has penetrated to the staff level -- consider the case of the NFL Network and Time Warner. Less than 24 hours after the NFL Network filed an emergency complaint and request for injuctive relief with the FCC, the Commission issued an Order telling Time Warner to continue to show NFL Network until resolution of the complaint. The FCC also set an expedited briefing schedule, so it will have a complete record by August 20. The FCC hasn't shown any particular interest in enforcing its cable rules before, and certainly not over shafting an independent programmer on a technicality. As I have said to FCC folks before: “if you treat your rules like a joke, everyone else will too.â€
http://www.wetmachine.com//item/562
FCC Staff really starting to get the hang of this “enforcement†thing...
DOES BIG MEDIA NEED TO GET ANY BIGGER?
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Norman Lear and Robert W. McChesney]
[Commentary] Over the last 25 years, the number of corporations that dominate television, movies, music, radio, cable and the Internet has dwindled from more than 50 to just a handful of massive conglomerates. Do we really want Big Media to get even bigger? Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin does. He just relaunched the FCC's formal review of media ownership rules. The agency's "Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," issued July 25, is vague, but its intent is clear: to let a few giant media corporations swallow up more local television channels, radio stations and newspapers in a single market. The Chairman's main target is the ban on "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership" that prohibits one company from owning the major daily newspaper as well as radio and TV stations in the same area. He'd also like to allow one company to own more than one TV station in smaller markets, and more than two in the largest cities. If the changes are approved, one corporation could own the major daily newspaper, eight radio stations and three television stations in the same town. Once the digital television transition is completed in 2009 -- allowing stations to broadcast multiple signals -- one company could control 12 or even 18 television channels in a single city. But what's good for Big Media's bottom line isn't always good for the rest of us. The first casualty of "media company towns" would be journalism.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lear5aug05,0,246426...
(requires registration)
Does Big Media Need to Get Any Bigger?
MEDIA FOR EVERYONE
[SOURCE: The Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Rep Diane Watson (D-CA)]
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission has reinitiated its effort to further loosen media ownership rules. The last time the FCC tried this, in 2003, I, and nearly three million Americans, objected. We wanted to make sure that the media worked in the public interest, not to the benefit of a few. We wanted to make sure that the media showcased our nation’s rich tapestry of interests, ideas, and experiences. Americans need a media system that allows free and fair competition. But with our current highly concentrated media market we must ask, who is shut out of that market? Whose lives are not reflected in our news and entertainment? It’s very easy to identify one trend: growing media concentration has been harmful to minority owners and minority communities. Since Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, minority ownership of radio and television stations has declined. In 2000, only 175 minority broadcasters in radio owned 426 stations, about 4.0 percent of the nation’s 10,577 commercial AM and FM radio stations. In the television market, minorities owned only 23 full power commercial stations, representing 1.9 percent of the country’s 1,288 licensed stations. This is the lowest level recorded since tracking of the data began in 1990. We need ownership rules that will expand opportunities for minorities to enter the market, not limit them. Keeping minority owners out of the market is detrimental not only to them, but to the consumers they wish to serve. Without diverse ownership, many Americans will never see images and hear stories that reflect their own experiences. Invisibility -- or demeaning visibility -- can lead to stereotyping, bigotry, and racism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-diane-watson/media-for-everyone_b_2656...
Media for Everyone
PUBLIC INPUT VITAL ON MEDIA REGULATION
[SOURCE: Seattle Times 8/6, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Let us hope the Federal Communications Commission learned the importance of an open process when tinkering with rules that govern media ownership. The FCC announced in June that the commission would revisit whether to repeal media-ownership rules. On July 25, the FCC started a public comment period that will close Nov. 21 and plans to hold six public hearings throughout the nation. That's a good start, but not enough for an issue that directly affects democracy. The public-comment period should be lengthened, promoted and more hearings should be added.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003176078_heare...
Public input Vital on Media Regulation
CLEAR CHANNEL LOBBIES FOR CHANGE
[SOURCE: TheDeal.com, AUTHOR: Ron Orol]
Despite the certainty of another high-profile battle with opponents of media consolidation, Clear Channel Communications Inc. has quietly floated a plan that would allow the radio giant and other station owners to boost their holdings in the largest U.S. markets. Clear Channel is considering filing a formal petition to the Federal Communications Commission seeking to raise the caps limiting how many stations one company can own in the largest individual U.S. markets, according to sources close to the company. Clear Channel, the country's largest radio station group with 1,189 outlets, wants the FCC to relax a rule that limits a company's radio station ownership in individual markets. The limits are set on sliding scale and based on market size. A company may own no more than eight radio stations in the largest U.S. markets, such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, where at least 45 full-power radio stations operate. Radio industry sources say Clear Channel is seeking approval from the FCC to own 10 stations in markets with 60 radio stations and 12 radio outlets in the largest U.S. markets that have 75 radio stations or more. Consumer groups contend that the new outlets are less able than radio to provide local news, weather and traffic information. Jenny Toomey, executive director of the Future of Music Coalition in Washington, said new entrants such as Internet radio are not adding a significant new source of local news, a key product traditional radio stations must provide. Without additional places for consumers to receive local news and information, more consolidation cannot be permitted, she said.
http://www.thedeal.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=NYT&c=TDDArticle&cid=1...
http://www.thedeal.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=NYT&c=TDDArticle&cid=115407453…