Benton RSS Feed
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, Monday refused to endorse the newest version of a sweeping telecommunications bill sponsored by chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), calling the third draft released last Friday "a further step backward for consumers." Without support from Inouye, Stevens might have trouble producing a bill that won't spark a partisan battle on the Senate floor. "I had hoped throughout the process that our committee members could work together to develop a bipartisan bill that would encourage innovation, promote fair competition, and ensure that all consumers would get the full benefits of modern communications networks," Sen Inouye said. "Regrettably, [I and some committee Democrats] believe the latest draft of communications legislation marks a further step backward for consumers, and it calls into question our commitment to passing a bipartisan communications reform package in this Congress."
Today's Quote 06.20.06
Senate Commerce Committee Co-chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has parted ways with his friend Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) on Monday's draft of video franchise/communications reform. Sen Stevens has worked on maintaining the bipartisan tone set by his decision to share the title of chairman, but responding to the latest and likely last draft before the bill is marked up Thursday, Sen Inouye took issue with numerous changes, saying they were steps backward for the consumers Sen Stevens said he was looking out for. Sen Inouye was particularly concerned with portions that allow VoIP providers to "escape" some e911 obligations and what he said were states' lack of control over video service requirements. Sen Inouye said that new, somewhat tougher, network neutrality language still "utterly fail[s] to protect consumers and preserve an open Internet. Under the current language, network operators will have the ability to dictate what the Internet of the future will look like, what content it will include, and how it will operate. In the absence of meaningful consumer protections, network operators will have the unfettered capacity to discriminate against unaffiliated online content, degrade their quality of service, or impose steep charges for prioritized traffic. The dill does not mandate sports programming access requirements, which had been pushed by telcos and opposed by cable and had been included in an earlier, telco-friendlier draft. Prompted by some high-profile sports access fights, the second draft had closed the so-called terrestrial loophole, which allowed a cable operator like Comcast not to give the satellite competition access to its regional sports network because it was delivered terrestrially. Current law requires access only to satellite-delivered programming networks. A committee vote on the legislation is scheduled for Thursday (http://www.benton.org/node/2406).
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6345408?display=Breaking+News
* Sports Access Out of New Senate Draft
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6345215?display=Breaking+News
* Inouye Rips New Stevens Draft Bill
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6345459.html?display=Breaking+News
* New Senate Draft Includes Key Changes
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-NTQA1150746577355.html
* No Free Ride for AT&T in Stevens Bill
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6345480.html?display=Breaking+News
* For more on the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S.2686)
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6345408.html?display=Breaking...
Inouye Pans Latest Franchise Bill Draft
A TEN-POINT PLAN FOR MEDIA DEMOCRACY
[SOURCE: The Nation, AUTHOR: Jeffrey Chester]
[Commentrary] Ten years after the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, digital technologies are rapidly reshaping the country's communications system. It will be the most powerful media environment ever created -- always "on" with connections via PCs, digital TVs and an array of mobile devices, delivering a torrent of personalized, interactive and virtual content, much of it coming from the nation's most powerful traditional and new media companies. The next several years are critical to insure that the promise of what we now experience online -- and its vast potential to help build a just civil society -- is fulfilled. With Congress poised to pass legislation that rewrites key parts of the Telecom Act, the following ten action items should be on any media reform agenda: 1) media ownership, 2) mergers, 3) network neutrality, 4) spectrum management, 5) community broadband, 6) privacy, 7) intellectual property, 8) universal service, 9) diverse content and 10) minority ownership.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/chester
A Ten-Point Plan for Media Democracy
FIGHT FOR A FREE PRESS
[SOURCE: The Nation, AUTHOR: Robert W. McChesney]
[Commentrary] Although media ownership concentration has not increased especially over the past few years, the damage has been done. Democracy is premised on a free press, and freedom of the press is premised on the absence of public or private gatekeepers with monopolistic power. It is why the Supreme Court ruled in 1945 that antitrust was probably more appropriate in the realm of media than in any other area. This concentrated, conglomerated and profit-driven media system is hardly the result of "free enterprise." These giant companies are the recipients of enormous direct and indirect subsidies and/or government-granted monopoly franchises. They include: monopoly licenses to radio and TV frequencies, cable and satellite TV monopoly franchises, magazine postal subsidies and copyright, to mention a few. For these firms the most important competition may well be in Washington, getting the cushy subsidies and licenses. These policies, worth tens of billions annually, are generally made in our name but without our informed consent. That is the heart of the problem, and it points us to the solution: informed public participation on media policy-making.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/mcchesney
Fight for a Free Press
THE DEATH OF NEWS
[SOURCE: The Nation, AUTHOR: Mark Crispin Miller]
[Commentary] Although its history is far from glorious, the US press has never been as bad as it is now; and so we rarely hear, from any serious reporters, those blithe claims that all is well. Contrary to the counterclaims in 1996, there was, as The Nation noted then, copious hard evidence of corporate meddling with the news, and also, even more important, lots of subtler evidence of reportorial self-censorship throughout the media cartel. And yet what stood out as egregious back then seems pretty tame today, now that the press consistently tunes out or plays down the biggest news, while hyping trivialities, or, if it covers a disaster, does so only fleetingly and without "pointing fingers." The press that went hoarse over Monica Lewinsky's dress is largely silent on the Bush regime's subversion of the Constitution; its open violation of the laws here and abroad; its global use of torture; its vast surveillance program(s); its covert propaganda foreign and domestic; its flagrant cronyism; its suicidal military, economic and environmental policies; and its careful placement of the federal establishment into the hands of Christian extremists. Whether it's such tawdry fare as Jeffrey Gannon's many overnights at Bush's house, or graver matters like the Patriot Act, or the persistent questions about 9/11, or the President's imperial "signing statements" or -- most staggering of all -- the ever-growing evidence of coast-to-coast election fraud by Bush & Co., the press has failed in its constitutional obligation to keep us well informed about the doings of our government.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/crispinmiller
The Death of News
PATTERN RECOGNITION IN THE BUSH MEDIA ERA
[SOURCE: MediaChannel, AUTHOR: Danny Schechter]
[Commentary] In a media environment of so much “noise,†clutter and contentious argument, oft-repeated simplistic phrases easily break through into public consciousness at a time when impressions and thought by association often drive meaning. This approach is not fact-based but rather uses symbols and stylized sincerity more than serious explanation. That’s why it’s effective in an already dumbed down media environment.
http://www.mediachannel.org/affalert426.shtml
Pattern Recognition in the Bush Media Era
CO-OPTING CONSUMERS OF COLOR
[SOURCE: The Nation, AUTHOR: Makani Themba-Nixon]
[Commentrary] Big corporations reaching consumers of color is something they say we should celebrate. However, this market penetration has gone hand in hand with decreasing media ownership by people of color, resulting in loss of industry voice and jobs. Flagship properties that were once trumpeted as success stories in black ownership--BET and Essence magazine--have become little more than shadows of their parent companies. Television-staffing diversity has also been taking a real blow, especially since the merger of UPN with WB. According to a forthcoming study commissioned by the Writers Guild of America west, before the merger UPN had the single highest concentration of writers of color--63 percent of television writers of color in 2005-06 were employed by UPN. This was part of a conscious marketing strategy aimed at cornering the young black market to carve out a bankable niche. Some of the most controversial black programming on the air, including a short-lived, much-protested sitcom on slavery, was on CBS-owned UPN. But UPN is merging with WB to create a new network called CW. CW's fall scheduling plans show a safe mix of both networks' main stalwarts, which bodes deep cuts in UPN's black programming.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/thembanixon
Co-opting Consumers of Color
REHR, CUOMO DISS CONTENT CRACKDOWN
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
NAB President David Rehr and former Democratic New York Governor and Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher Attorney Mario Cuomo are on the same page when it comes to the crackdown on broadcast speech. They don't like it. Rehr Monday suggested that one of his principle concerns that it is not too great a leap from the suppression of indecent speech to that of political speech. "My big worry with the whole indecency debate," he told a New York radio audience, "is that there is not that much of a span between what is considered indecent and something that people should dare not talk about. And when you get into the idea that there are certain things that people in America should not talk about, then that is bad for the country." Asked whether he thought stations were blameless in the crackdown, Rehr said that some performers may be "a little edgy," but said the problem was focusing on the 1% or 2% that is edgy or vulgar rather than on the 98% that is decent and great and local." Former Gov Cuomo said, "There is a certain degree of palpable hypocrisy in Congress when they make these fine morale judgments about obscenity." He said what was "obscene" was instead the lack of communication associated with the "billions of dollars [legislators] pass every year in arcane, invisible bills that nobody gets a chance to see. If they want to deal with morality in communications, they should start there." Cuomo said the culture must be the governor on morality, that kids must ultimately decide for themselves what is appropriate according to principles taught at home and in school. "Free speech is so valuable that I will pay even a big price for it. Even if my sensitivities have to be offended from time to time." he said. "To try to do it in a statue, it just doesn't work. Cuomo said that he would not have signed the indecency fine-boost bill if he were president. It is unenforceable, he argued. "The rule has to be imposed by your culture, not legislated. Society is constantly shifting and evolving, for better of worse."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6345473?display=Breaking+News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6345473?display=Breaking%20News
NAB CLAIMS $10.3 BILLION IN PUBLIC SERVICE
[SOURCE: National Association of Broadcasters]
The National Association of Broadcasters has released its "National Report on Broadcasters Community Service," claiming local radio and TV stations around the country delivered $10.3 billion in community service last year. The figure was derived from an industry census sent earlier this year to more than 11,000 full-power commercial radio and television stations. Broadcasters were asked to document from January 1 - December 31, 2005 the number of PSAs they aired, the amount of money raised for charity through direct station fundraising appeals and funds raised for disaster relief. "This year's survey affirms the longstanding fact that local over-the-air radio and television stations are collectively the number one provider of public service in America," NAB President and CEO David K. Rehr said. "Whether it's donating airtime for valuable public service announcements or raising money for charity and disaster relief, local broadcasters nationwide can be proud of the tremendous contributions they make in their communities everyday."
http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/newsletters/radioweek/2006/061906/05com...
http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/newsletters/tvtoday/2006/061906/05commu...
See also --
* What Community Service?
Even thought more than three-quarters of U.S. adults rely on local TV news, according to a January 2006 Harris Poll, the NAB doesn't tout the service delivered by local television newscasts; this article explains why.
http://www.benton.org/benton_files/whatservice.doc
NAB Claims $10.3 Billion in Public Service
SUBSIDIZING YESTERDAY'S TELEPHONES
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Local phone monopolies are trying to saddle high-tech competitors with fees designed to subsidize the traditional phone network. At issue is how federal and state regulators will treat voice over Internet protocol, or VOIP, services like Vonage that use high-speed Internet connections, not conventional phone circuits, to transmit calls. So far, these services have been able to escape much of the byzantine regulation that permeates the telecommunications business. In particular, they've avoided the access charges that long-distance and wireless companies have to pay local phone companies when connecting to their customers. These charges not only cover the cost of connecting calls but also subsidize phone lines in rural and other high-cost areas. VOIP also has been exempt from federal and state "universal service" fees, another source of subsidies for traditional phone lines. Those exemptions are in danger, however. With the distinction between local and long-distance evaporating, the FCC has been struggling to phase out access charges and overhaul universal service. Rather than dragging VOIP services into the morass of subsidies for phone circuits, lawmakers and regulators should focus on pushing high-speed Internet connections to every U.S. home and business. If that means people using VOIP save a few bucks at the expense of those who use other phone services, so be it. With luck, VOIP will drive up the demand for broadband and hasten its spread, diminishing the need to subsidize plain old telephone lines.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-voip20jun20,1,486...
(requires registration)
Subsidizing yesterday's telephones