Benton RSS Feed

The Senate Commerce Committee rejected three Democratic amendments to a telecommunications package. The amendments covered Internet telephone regulation, communications subsidies for emergency responders and city cable franchises. The committee rejected, 7-15, an amendment that would have allowed states to regulate Internet telephone calls. It also rejected, 10-12, the call to add a subsidy for emergency communications to the universal service fund. The third amendment to allow local conditions on cable system sales failed 9-13. The three votes came as the committee continued its marathon debate of a bill, S. 2686, offered by Chairman Ted Stevens. He began Tuesday's session by introducing a package of 16 separate modifications. The package was accepted by voice vote. The most significant of those changes was Stevens' own amendment on video franchising. The change "includes the final four issues requested by the cities," according to a statement by Sen Stevens. Municipalities have been reluctant to accept the key purpose of the bill's video-franchising title, which would allow Bell telephone companies quick entry into the pay-television marketplace by circumventing the review process for local cable franchises. TVWeek reports that the committee put off until tomorrow a debate on net neutrality.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-PIGO1151436415191.html
* Chairman Stevens' Opening Statement at the Communications Reform Bill Markup
"The measure is the work product of every Member of this Committee. It incorporates suggestions, language, and in some cases entire bills drafted by our members on both sides of the aisle."
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Det...
* Congress Looks to Offer Big Telecom "Prize"
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3315
* Stevens short on votes for telco bill
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he does not yet have the necessary votes to get legislation to overhaul communications laws through the full Senate.
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFi...
STEVENS OK WITH BUILD-OUT INFO ADDITION
The Senate Commerce Committee began its second day of hearings on video franchise reform with Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) trying to accommodate a host of groups in marking up a bill he hopes will pass committee and the full Senate. The committee quickly passed the mangers amendment, which had been modified from last week to include provisions pushed by city governments, including extending, from 75 to 90 days, the time cities have to strike and agreement before a new video franchisee can seek a standardized franchise from the FCC. It also clarified the definition of video service provider to include IPTV services like that of AT&T, which has argued that its Internet-based service did not need a franchise. See the URL below for a look at the amendments considered (there were over 100) and which ones created the most fireworks.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6347467.html?display=Breaking...
THE JOKER IN STEVENS DECK -- SECTION 1004
[Commentary] In the dead of night, just before the latest draft of the Stevens bill came out, a helpful Telco lobbyist inserted a little provision to stack the deck in the case of judicial review. Section 1004 of the Stevens draft now places exclusive jurisdiction for all decisions by the FCC in the D.C. Circuit. This includes not just network neutrality, but media ownership, CALEA, wireless issues, anything. Why would anyone do that you ask? Because the D.C. Cir. is, without doubt, the most activist court in the land when it comes to pressing its vision of media and telecom policy. More than any other court, the D.C. Cir. can be credited with destroying hope of telecom competition in the United States by perpetually reversing and remanding the FCC's efforts at rulemaking and enforcement until the FCC finally gave up and effectively deregulated. The D.C. Cir. is also responsible for vacating (eliminating by judicial fiat) the rule preventing cable companies from owning television stations where they have cable systems, and overturning much of the FCC's cable and broadcast ownership limits. Finally, through the legal doctrine known as “standing”, the D.C. Circuit has done its best to make it impossible for regular people to challenge FCC decisions or bring individual cases on antitrust grounds.
http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/
SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE MOVES TO LIMIT ADS ON KIDS PROGRAMMING
The Senate Commerce Committee moved to impose new limits on advertising and interactive content in children's programming, piling amendments into a bill that would ease telephone companies' entry into the television business. with no debate, the committee added a provision to the legislation that would apply the current limits on the number of commercials in children's TV -- which now apply to broadcast and cable -- to any video provider. (The Federal Communications Commission limits advertising on children's TV to 12 minutes per hour on weekdays and 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends.) The amendment, proposed by Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Mark Pryor (D-AK) would extend the current limits to any video service aimed at kids on the Web, which is luring younger viewers away from traditional TV. The committee adopted a ban on "any interactivity designed with the purpose of selling or promoting a product, service or brand" during children's programming. The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who also moved to require the FCC complete within six months its two-year-old inquiry into the effects of violent TV on children. In another potentially controversial amendment, the committee voted to bar the FCC from fining independent network affiliates for airing network programming they hadn't been given the opportunity to preview for objectionable content. The amendment from Sen. Ben Nelson (R-NE) would protect stations from the kind of fines generated by the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast, when Janet Jackson's breast was bared in a half-time show and the FCC punished stations that aired the game.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=10274
(requires free registration)
* Senators adopt Web labeling requirement
http://news.com.com/Senators+adopt+Web+labeling+requirement/2100-1028_3-...
SENATE COMMERCE DEFERS 700 MHZ AMENDMENT
The Senate Commerce Committee deferred action on an amendment that would have reconfigured the 700 Mhz band so that it could be auctioned off in more geographically targeted chunks. Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) pointed out that he supported the idea, and had even championed it in a DTV bill that had to be stripped of that and other issues to square with Senate rules. But he also said that the auction had already been set for 2008 for the spectrum being reclaimed from broadcasters after the switch to digital, and that to try to reconfigure the band now would delay that auction and could change the value of the spectrum and put an additional burden on the committee for the money promised to the US Treasury. Co-sponsor Olympic Snowe (R-Maine) argued that the Congressional Budget Office had already determined that reconfiguring would not lessen the value of the spectrum, which as currently constituted could be as much as $36 billion.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6347621.html?display=Breaking...
NTCA REACTS TO SENATE MARK OF TELECOM REWRITE LEGISLATION
Calling it another step forward in the process of reforming our communications laws to reflect the changing realities of today’s market place, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) today commended the Senate Commerce Committee for its thoughtful consideration of S. 2686, the “Communications Consumer’s Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006,” introduced by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). NTCA was particularly pleased with the withdrawal of an amendment that would have capped the Universal Service Fund (USF) at $6.52 billion annually. A cap is a disincentive to network investment, as it would hinder a carrier’s ability to receive the support it is due. Capping USF also runs counter to President Bush’s goal of ubiquitous broadband by 2007. The group commended Senator Dorgan for raising the complexities of preempting state control over voice over Internet protocol, noting that “while his attempt to strike VoIP preemption failed to pass the committee, Senator Dorgan engaged the committee in a colloquy about the importance of competitive neutrality and ensuring state and federal USF obligations for VoIP providers,” Bloomfield said.
http://www.ntca.org/ka/ka-3.cfm?content_item_id=4403&folder_id=644
WYDEN GUARDS THE NET
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said, "I will do anything I can to block a major telecom rewrite that undermines what makes the Internet special. I will block it. I will do anything I can to derail it. This is something I consider extremely important." The issue at stake, for him, is Network Neutrality. Historically, phone companies -- the people who now own the Internet pipes -- have been prevented from charging Web sites extra to get hooked up quicker than other sites. Last August, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that the companies could charge more, opening up all kinds of possibilities. Net neutrality backers point out that the new arrangement gives the phone companies a new authority over Internet connections. "From Intel's perspective," explains Marjorie Dickman, a senior government affairs attorney for the company in Washington, D.C., "we believe that without quite explicit consumer safeguards, the openness that has been the hallmark of the Internet up to this point will be endangered." Sen Wyden is a co-sponsor of an amendment to attach net neutrality to the telecom reform bill in the Commerce Committee, and if what comes out looks different, he has options -- including placing a hold on the bill that would slow its process through the Senate. Already, this is a Congress that runs slower than dial-up connection, "There aren't a lot of legislative days left," he points out accurately. "We'll see how much clout the big telephone and cable people have over the United States Senate." And in trying to keep Congress from ratifying a change in the basic principles of cyberspace, Wyden's side starts out with a major advantage: The Internet is a lot more efficient that the Senate.
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1151114123112...
CONSUMER GROUPS, STATES QUESTION TELECOM BILL
An overlooked piece of a far-reaching broadband bill scheduled to be debated in a U.S. Senate committee this week would end state regulators' power to mediate in consumer complaints about wireless phone service. Several consumer groups and state attorneys general have protested the removal of state consumer protection powers in a recent draft of the Consumers' Choice and Broadband Deployment Act, scheduled for amendment hearings in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Tuesday and Wednesday. Net neutrality provisions remain a huge focus of debate surrounding the bill, which would also streamline franchising requirements for telecom carriers offering broadband television service in competition with cable TV. But the switch to a national consumer protection model for wireless services could hurt consumers, said representatives of the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC). The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn't have the resources to investigate and mediate thousands of complaints about wireless telephone service each year, said Tony Clark, a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission and chairman of the NARUC telecom committee. States have long had the power to investigate consumer complaints about wireless service, NARUC notes. The new provision "really takes states completely out of the playing field," said Clark, a Republican. "This is way out of line to take an eraser to the chalkboard of any state consumer protection laws out there." But the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), a trade group representing wireless carriers, says a regime of dozens of slightly different state regulations hurts consumers by limiting the services and pricing plans carriers can offer.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/26/79650_Hntelecombill_1.html?sou...
BROADCAST FLAG WAVES ON HILL
The digital audio and video broadcast flag got a double dose of Hill attention Tuesday. In the Senate, the digital-content-protection technology was part of a video franchising bill being marked up in the Commerce Committee. Two amendments related to the flag were withdrawn, but may be reintroduced during floor debate on the bill. In the House, the Commerce Telecommunications Subcommittee held a hearing on the flags Tuesday under the heading: "Can Content Protection and Technological Innovation Coexist?" Both sides would say the twin goals in the title are achievable, but disagree on how to strike that balance. It was the first hearing held on the audio flag.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6347610.html?display=Breaking...
* Senators endorse broadcast flag plan
http://news.com.com/Senators+endorse+broadcast+flag+plan/2100-1028_3-608...
* Public Knowledge Asks House Panel To Oppose Content Controls
Public Knowledge President Gigi B. Sohn told the House Telecom Subcommittee there is no need for Congress to enact content controls on broadcast digital television and digital radio. At a June 27 hearing on “The Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and Technological Innovation Coexist?”, Sohn noted that TV networks are now offering their programs on digital services, including the iTunes store and direct downloads, while Warner Brothers is working with BitTorrent, the peer-to-peer company. Sohn said in her written statement. “Yet even as innovators in the motion picture and recording industries promote these alternative distribution models and the technologies that facilitate them, their colleagues in Washington are asking Congress to step in and give them protection from the vague threat of massive copyright infringement the industry says these new technologies could facilitate.”
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/489

MCCLATCHY ORDERED TO DIVEST PIONEER PRESS
[SOURCE: MarketWatch, AUTHOR: David B. Wilkerson]
McClatchy Co., all set to close its $6.5 billion acquisition of Knight Ridder, has been ordered by the U.S. Department of Justice to sell the Knight-Ridder-owned St. Paul Pioneer Press before it can complete the deal. McClatchy also owns the neighboring Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The company has already announced that it intends to sell the St. Paul Pioneer Press to Hearst Corp. The DOJ said that without the divestiture of Pioneer Press, competition between it and the Star-Tribune would be eliminated, "and likely would have resulted in higher prices for advertisers and readers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area." According to Justice's complaint, competition has led to "better quality news coverage for readers and lower advertising rates and better service for local advertisers."
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B169349B4%2D3DD5...

* McClatchy Announces Done Deal -- With One Thing Left on 'To Do' List
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...

TELEVISA NOT DONE AFTER LOSING UNIVISION BATTLE
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Cyntia Barrera Diaz]
Televisa may have lost a bidding battle for partner Univision, but analysts believe the Mexican media group is still the most likely long-term buyer of the No. 1 U.S. Hispanic broadcaster. Univision said on Tuesday it accepted a $12.3 billion cash offer by an investor group led by media entrepreneur Haim Saban, edging out favored suitor Televisa after weeks of tense negotiations between the parties. But with no broadcasting experience and because of the tendency of equity groups to buy and then resell, Televisa could still snap up Univision by using its strong leverage in the Spanish-language media world. Televisa, which owns 11.4 percent of Univision, has a long- term programming deal with the U.S Spanish-language broadcaster that expires in 2017 and the Saban group will still have to deal with Televisa because of this agreement. "The winning consortium will ultimately want to sell Univision and Televisa remains the logical buyer," said Merrill Lynch in a report.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=industryNews&storyID...

* Televisa Balks at Univision Deal
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6347403.html?display=Breaking+News

* Univision Jilts Televisa for Rival Bid
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/business/media/28univision.html

* How Televisa Lost Univision Bid
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-univision28jun28,1,65...
(requires registration)

PATRIOTISM AND THE PRESS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists. Some have even suggested that it should be indicted under the Espionage Act. There have been a handful of times in American history when the government has indeed tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well -- from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The United States will soon be marking the fifth anniversary of the war on terror. The country is in this for the long haul, and the fight has to be coupled with a commitment to individual liberties that define America's side in the battle. A half-century ago, the country endured a long period of amorphous, global vigilance against an enemy who was suspected of boring from within, and history suggests that under those conditions, it is easy to err on the side of security and secrecy. The free press has a central place in the Constitution because it can provide information the public needs to make things right again. Even if it runs the risk of being labeled unpatriotic in the process.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/opinion/28Wed1.html
(requires registration)

* Piling On the New York Times With a Scoop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR200606...