Benton RSS Feed

Benton's Communications-related Headlines For Thursday June 1, 2006

To view Benton's Headlines feed in your RSS=20
Aggregator, paste=20
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dtaxonomy/term/6/all/feed into your read=
er.
For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org

FCC NEWS
The FCC's New Agenda
Senators Push Public-Interest Proceeding
Why Not More Media Consolidation?
NAB Buoyed By Movement on Multicast
FCC upholds CBS fine for Jackson Breast Flash

UNIVERSAL SERVICE
Universal Service safe through 2008
Universal Service Fund Changes Mulled Amid Evolving Telecom Landscape
Cable USF Payments May Soar
FCC Inspector General's Report to Congress

INTERNET/TELECOM LEGISLATION
Governors Protest Barton's National Franchise
Access to the Internet: Is it a right or a privilege?
Content Providers Square Off Against Phone, Cable Companies
Neutral Net? Who Are You Kidding?
California assembly votes bill easing cable rules

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Telecoms call for Legal Fixes after Katrina
U.S. asks Internet Firms to Save Data

QUICKLY -- Bill Moyers' Address to PBS Annual=20
Meeting; Franchise Battles Speed IPTV Rollouts;=20
Catch 475; Comcast: Non-Video Subs to Take Lead;=20
Comcast to Speed Downloads Of Some Movie, Music=20
Files; McClatchy Collects Offers on 6 Papers on=20
Final Day; Ad Spending Up for Broadcast Networks in Q1

FCC NEWS

THE FCC'S NEW AGENDA
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
With a Republican majority for the first time in=20
his tenure, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has a=20
number of proceedings he'd like to launch as soon=20
as the Commission's June 15 meeting. Chairman=20
Martin informed the other commissioners of his=20
intention to take up the ownership issue June 15,=20
though he is free to change the agenda right up=20
until the meeting. Martin is likely to get the=20
votes to get the ownership proceeding started,=20
since it only marks the beginning a process that=20
is likely to take a year or more. It would, in=20
that sense, be a "first vote for progress" on a=20
long-stalled issue, one that would have little=20
apparent downside. The ownership item is said to=20
consist of a proposed rulemaking rolling up=20
several elements, including a proceeding begun in=20
2001 to define radio markets, a proceeding on=20
newspaper/broadcast crossownership, the 2003=20
deregulatory rules and the FCC's quadrennial=20
review (Congress requires it to review its rules=20
every four years). It will lay out the issues,=20
call for comment and replies -- 45 days for=20
comment, 15 for replies -- and go from there.=20
Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein=20
are likely to push for swift FCC action on two=20
other ownership-related proceedings, a localism=20
proceeding launched by Chairman Michael Powell in=20
2003 to quell some of the criticism of the=20
derogatory ownership rules, and a DTV public=20
interest obligation proceeding launched in 1999.=20
Chairman Martin is also expected to call for a=20
vote on granting broadcasters' multicast=20
must-carry at that meeting if the commissioners=20
haven't already voted the item on circulation,=20
which is a vote by computer that does not require=20
the commissioners to meet. The newest=20
commissioner, Robert McDowell, could be sworn in=20
to his post by the end of the week -- perhaps=20
even today -- and, in theory, could ask that the=20
must-carry vote be delayed a month. The=20
must-carry proceeding is said to consist of an=20
order reversing the FCC's earlier decision=20
denying multicast must-carry, plus a notice of=20
proposed rulemaking on whether cable can degrade=20
the DTV signal and whether cable or subscribers=20
have to pay for the DTV set-top box to receive it.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339724?display=3DBreaking+News

SENATORS PUSH PUBLIC-INTEREST PROCEEDING
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Senators Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Byron Dorgan=20
(D-ND) have written to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin=20
asking that the FCC wrap up a 2003 proceeding on=20
broadcasters' public interest service before=20
launching a rewrite of deregulatory ownership=20
rules. "The FCC must first establish that there=20
are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that=20
broadcasters are serving their local communities=20
before any loosening of ownership can occur," the=20
senators wrote. Former-FCC Chairman Michael=20
Powell, in an effort to preserve his deregulatory=20
ownership rules, argued that loosening those=20
rules was a procedural matter and that the=20
public-interest implications of the changes were=20
better addressed in a separate proceeding, which=20
he opened in 2003. Now Chairman Martin has=20
tentatively scheduled a vote on launching the=20
long-delayed omnibus proceeding at the FCC's June=20
15 meeting, but according to a source, the=20
public-interest proceeding was not part of the=20
proposed notice, which folds in the 2003=20
ownership rule remand, two open proceedings -- on=20
newspaper-broadcast crossownership and radio=20
markets -- and the congressionally mandated quadrennial review of FCC rules.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339853?display=3DBreaking+News

WHY NOT MORE MEDIA CONSOLIDATION?
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Norman Horowitz]
[Commentary] This administration, (like so many=20
in the past), would like us to have as little=20
diversity in our media as possible, and be able=20
to control access for such content into our=20
homes. At some time in the future will the=20
government be bashful about determining what we=20
watch and listen to on cable or on the Internet?=20
(National security you know). The greater the=20
consolidation, the easier it is for the=20
government to accomplish this either by law or by=20
pressure on the media companies. It has been the=20
stated goal of our illustrious Federal=20
Communications Commission (FCC) to promote media=20
competition, diversity, and localism, but what is=20
the FCC is doing to assist America achieve=20
competition, diversity, and localism? If the FCC=20
does what it appears to be doing, AT&T, Time=20
Warner, and Comcast will control over half of the=20
high speed Internet connections in our country.=20
When AT&T merges with Bell South, they, along=20
with Verizon, will control over 2/3 of American=20
local phone connections. Comcast and Time Warner=20
are in the process of devouring Adelphia Cable,=20
and are clustering their holdings to reduce their=20
operating costs and increase their market=20
leverage. This will allow them control over=20
national and regional programming services. For=20
an added bonus, they will ultimately become=20
America's dominant broadband providers. It would=20
be nice to think that the FCC will only approve=20
mergers that will protect the public interest,=20
but just look at its history. It uses glowing=20
terminology to describe its horrid actions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-horowitz/why-not-more-media-consol_...
1926.html

NAB BUOYED BY MOVEMENT ON MULTICAST
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Not surprisingly, the National Association of=20
Broadcasters was buoyed by the news that FCC=20
Chairman Kevin Martin is circulating a proposed=20
rulemaking granting broadcasters multicast=20
must-carry. "We're encouraged by reports that=20
Chairman Martin supports revisiting an issue=20
that, if adopted, will bring more program choice=20
to cable customers," said NAB spokesman Dennis=20
Wharton. "It is NAB's longstanding position that=20
DTV multicasting rules will result in an=20
explosion in programming choices, including=20
public-interest programming that has long been=20
the hallmark of local=20
broadcasting." Broadcasters argue that they need=20
mandatory cable carriage of all the free channels=20
they can fit into their digital spectrum=20
allotment if they want to be competitive in a=20
multichannel world. Getting multicast must-carry=20
has been a primary goal of the NAB.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339473?display=3DBreaking+News

FCC UPHOLDS CBS FINE FOR JACKSON BREAST FLASH
[SOURCE: Reuters]
The Federal Communications Commission upheld on=20
Wednesday its decision to fine 20 CBS Corp.=20
television stations a total of $550,000 for=20
airing pop singer Janet Jackson's breast flash in=20
2004. "The commission affirms its finding that=20
CBS' violation was willful and declines to reduce=20
the forfeiture imposed upon CBS," the agency said=20
in a statement. In a separate statement, FCC=20
Commissioner explained why he dissented, in part,=20
from the order: "While I agree with the ultimate=20
outcome of today's Order on Reconsideration, I=20
concur in part because the Commission again has=20
not provided much-needed clarity and guidance to=20
our decision-making process in indecency=20
enforcement. In addition, I dissent in part=20
because I continue to believe the Commission has=20
erred in fining only CBS owned and operated=20
stations, not all stations that broadcasted the=20
indecent material." He added: "I also have grave=20
concerns with the failure of this Order to=20
provide clear guidance on the nature of the=20
Commission's new fine imposition policy announced=20
in the March 15th, 2006, Omnibus TV=20
Order. Rather than stating what the new policy=20
is not, as today's Order does, the Commission=20
should state affirmatively the key features of=20
our new 'more limited approach towards the=20
imposition of forfeiture penalties.' After all,=20
it is still unclear how the Commission determines=20
the sufficiency of a viewer's complaint in light=20
of this new enforcement policy."
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=3DentertainmentNews&...
ryID=3D2006-05-31T203903Z_01_WBT005460_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-DECENCY-CBS.xml
* FCC press release:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265722A1.doc
* FCC order:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-68A1.doc
* Statement by Commissioner Adelstein
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-68A2.doc
* FCC Reaffirms Its Indecency Fine for CBS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114911044636367845.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace

UNIVERSAL SERVICE

UNIVERSAL SERVICE SAFE THROUGH 2008
[SOURCE: Reuters]
Federal Communications Commission promised that=20
past accounting problems would not affect=20
subsidies for telephone and Internet services=20
through 2008, including in rural and poor areas,=20
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) said on Tuesday.=20
Until last week, Sen Rockefeller had blocked the=20
nomination of a new FCC commissioner amid=20
concerns over the agency's management of the=20
Universal Service Fund. The USF subsidizes=20
communications services in schools, libraries,=20
rural areas and low-income households. In 2004,=20
the agency briefly halted hundreds of millions of=20
dollars in subsidies for schools and libraries=20
across the country after discovering the program=20
did not comply with certain U.S. government=20
accounting standards. Congress had to approve=20
exemptions to the so-called Anti-Deficiency Act=20
so the USF programs would not run afoul of the=20
accounting rules. The most recent exemption goes=20
through 2006. "After internal FCC review, the FCC=20
has assured me that all of the USF programs will,=20
at least early into 2008, continue without=20
disruption because they are in full compliance=20
with federal budgetary requirements," said Sen=20
Rockefeller whose largely rural state is a=20
beneficiary of the program. He said in a=20
statement that Congress would continue to work toward a permanent fix.
http://today.reuters.com/investing/FinanceArticle.aspx?type=3DbondsNews&...
ryID=3D2006-05-30T222544Z_01_N3018894_RTRIDST_0_TELECOMS-ERATE.XML

UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND CHANGES MULLED AMID EVOLVING TELECOM LANDSCAPE
[SOURCE: e-Commerce Times, AUTHOR: Keith Regan]
To many telecommunications customers, the=20
Universal Service Fund, or USF, is one of several=20
hidden costs of making long-distance phone calls.=20
It is one of a handful of government fees that=20
appear on each month's phone bill. Currently,=20
customers pay a monthly USF charge based on how=20
much they spend on long-distance charges. Now,=20
however, the Federal Communications Commission is=20
mulling a change to a flat-fee, numbers-based=20
system that would charge everyone who owns a=20
phone number a single monthly fee. Supporters say=20
the change would continue to maintain the fund --=20
which is funneled to provide telecom access for=20
poor and rural residents by setting up telecom=20
and Internet access points in schools, libraries=20
and other public locations -- while also=20
simplifying the collection of the fee at a time=20
when everything about telecommunications is=20
becoming increasingly complex. The change enjoys=20
widespread support and is seen being adopted in=20
time. Some in the telecom industry say the FCC=20
should proceed with caution, however, to avoid=20
harming the very people the USF was established=20
to help, urging exemptions for free phone=20
services and cautioning that the exploding VoIP=20
landscape complicates any discussion of telecom fees.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/82BukDICU35uPX/Universal-Service-Fun...
hanges-Mulled-Amid-Evolving-Telecom-Landscape.xhtml
* FCC considers fee to bolster flagging long-distance taxes
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/11490506672...
50.xml&coll=3D1
* FCC Weighs Internet Phone Charge
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114913071311968394.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one

CABLE USF PAYMENTS MAY SOAR
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Cable operators that offer=20
voice-over-Internet-protocol service could see=20
their federal phone-subsidy payments more than=20
double under a proposal supported by Federal=20
Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin,=20
according to cable and other sources familiar=20
with the plan. Chairman Martin=92s plan is designed=20
to shore up the universal-service fund (USF) as a=20
result of changes in the voice-communications=20
market and the agency=92s decision last year to=20
exempt digital-subscriber-line revenue from going=20
toward USF contributions. The DSL exemption alone=20
is expected to drain $350 million annually from=20
the $6.5 billion program. The FCC could vote on=20
Martin=92s plan at its June 15 meeting, but an=20
agency spokesman would not confirm any proposed=20
changes to the USF. Martin=92s plan is considered=20
an interim step. In an approach supported by the=20
cable industry, he is in favor of adopting what=92s=20
called a numbers-based approach, which would=20
involve charging a monthly fee on each working=20
phone number in order to collect the $6.5 billion=20
needed. A cable-industry source said a=20
numbers-based approach would cost a cable VoIP=20
customer about $1 per month, compared with $2.83=20
under Martin=92s interim plan. USF fees may be=20
passed along to consumers. Under Martin=92s plan,=20
the wireless formula is to rise to 37.1%. But=20
VoIP providers are to assume that 65% of revenue=20
is interstate, forcing Time Warner to increase=20
its USF payments. Wireless carriers will end up=20
paying 4% of total revenue and cable operators 7%=20
of their VoIP revenue into the USF.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6339867.html?display=3DBreaking+News
* Bigger bills loom for users of wireless and Net phones
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20060601/voip01.art.htm

FCC INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
Kent Nilsson, the FCC's Acting Inspector General,=20
released his Semiannual Report to Congress.=20
Concerning Universal Service, he concludes: "Our=20
involvement in E-rate beneficiary audits and=20
investigations has not lessened our concerns=20
about fraud, waste, and abuse in Universal=20
Service Fund programs. We remain committed to
meeting our statutory responsibility to provide=20
effective, independent oversight of the Universal=20
Service Fund program. We believe we are making=20
significant progress toward achieving our goal of=20
designing, and eventually implementing, an=20
effective oversight program. However a lack of=20
adequate resources continues to impede our=20
ability to provide effective, independent=20
oversight of the E-rate program and the other=20
programs that are financed through the Universal Service Fund."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265713A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265713A1.txt

INTERNET

GOVERNORS PROTEST BARTON'S NATIONAL FRANCHISE
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
In a letter to the chairman and ranking member of=20
the House Commerce Committee, the National=20
Governors Association (NGA) wants the=20
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and=20
Enhancement (COPE) Act (H.R. 5252) changed to=20
give states the option to take control of the=20
cable-franchising process from the Federal=20
Communications Commission. Under H.R. 5252, the=20
FCC would take control of cable franchising of=20
new entrants, such as AT&T and Verizon=20
Communications, across the country. Cable=20
incumbents are eligible for national franchises=20
in certain cases, including if new providers=20
enter their video markets under FCC licensing.=20
The bill would continue to allow any=20
cable-service provider to rely on a local or=20
state franchise in lieu of a national franchise.=20
But NGA argues that COPE would interfere with=20
efforts by states to adopt statewide cable=20
franchising in order to promote cable competition=20
in a manner that does not ignore local needs.=20
Texas, Virginia and Indiana have enacted=20
statewide franchising. COPE, NGA says,=20
=93eviscerates these efforts with a federal=20
framework that does not reflect the priorities=20
and prerogatives of states.=94 NGA also objects to=20
provisions that would allow local governments to=20
offer cable, information or telecommunications=20
service without state authorization. It calls the=20
provisions =93an unwarranted federal intrusion into=20
state affairs =85 which preempts states=92 ability to=20
manage broadband deployment in its political subdivisions.=94
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6339554.html?display=3DBreaking+News

ACCESS TO THE INTERNET: IS IT A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE?
[SOURCE: Minneapolis Star Tribune, AUTHOR: John Reinan]
Imagine if the Internet were like cable TV. You=20
pay $40 a month to Time Warner or Comcast, and=20
you get a menu of 80 websites to visit. Want to=20
go to a site devoted to Japanese anime cartoons?=20
Sorry, that's not on the menu. Looking for that=20
crazy blog about the history of matchbook covers?=20
No longer available -- or so slow to load it's=20
not worth your while. That scenario could become=20
real, some Internet mavens say, unless Congress=20
acts quickly to preserve freedom of the Web. A=20
recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has opened the=20
door to greater corporate control of the=20
Internet, and big business is ready to walk through it.
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/458590.html

CONTENT PROVIDERS SQUARE OFF AGAINST PHONE, CABLE COMPANIES
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Ira Teinowitz ]
The potential winners if tiered Internet becomes=20
a reality: the nation's big phone and cable=20
companies, as well as the marketing partners who=20
can afford the tolls for the access required to=20
provide high-speed video and audio. The losers:=20
consumers, who may have fewer choices and could=20
see prices rise for Internet downloads; content=20
providers that don't hook up with the phone or=20
cable companies; content providers that compete=20
with phone or cable companies; and the raft of=20
small businesses and consumers who won't be able=20
to compete, period. If a tiered Internet were put=20
in place -- still an if, now that the House=20
Judiciary Committee has sent its own legislation=20
guaranteeing Net neutrality to the floor and the=20
Senate Commerce Committee is considering an=20
amendment imposing net neutrality -- the major=20
content providers could afford to pay to play,=20
but the ramifications would be felt by both=20
consumers and marketers. It could change which=20
sites consumers use to download music and videos,=20
search the Web and even book travel reservations.=20
It could force marketers and media companies to=20
take telephone companies and cable providers as=20
new partners. Finally, it could raise Internet ad=20
prices either indirectly, as content providers=20
look to lessen the impact of the new tolls, or=20
directly, as marketers are required to pay to use=20
the better pipes to deliver their advertising. It=20
also could concentrate Web users (and therefore=20
ad dollars) with those providers willing and able=20
to pay the fees. Sound familiar? Glenn Reynolds,=20
a law professor and a former communications=20
lawyer, warned that tiered service would "likely=20
result in an Internet that looks more like cable=20
TV than the Internet." Oddly, while some big=20
marketers are raising the alarm about Net=20
neutrality, media companies have been silent.=20
Disney/ABC, NBC and CBS all declined requests for=20
comment on Net neutrality. "Things in Washington=20
tend to get compartmentalized," said Art Brodsky,=20
a spokesman for Public Knowledge, a group=20
organizing for Net neutrality. "A lot of guys=20
aren't focusing on this as an issue that could=20
drastically affect their businesses."
http://adage.com/article?article_id=3D109555

NEUTRAL NET? WHO ARE WE KIDDING?
[SOURCE: Wired News, AUTHOR: Michael Grebb]
How neutral is the net right now? Not very, it=20
turns out. Net neutrality" has many meanings, but=20
in the broadest sense refers to a cooperative=20
principle whereby everyone on the net is supposed=20
to make the same effort to help deliver everyone=20
else's traffic. In fact, pushing bits through the=20
network-of-networks that makes up the Internet is=20
an anarchic business and frequently an ugly one.=20
ISPs must often fight to get their data carried=20
on neighboring networks, and those who are=20
willing to pay extra reap immediate benefits in=20
the form of faster and better service. Vast=20
amounts of traffic are rerouted and blocked every=20
day. The system, while successful overall, seems=20
to ride on the very edge of chaos, insiders say.=20
"I don't think the Internet has ever been=20
perfectly equal or neutral," says Khaled Nasr, a=20
partner at venture-capital firm InterWest=20
Partners. "There has always been some level of=20
inequality." Seconds Matt Tooley, CTO of=20
broadband optimization firm CableMatrix: "I don't=20
think it's as egalitarian as people would like to think it is."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/1,71012-0.html

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY VOTES BILL EASING CABLE RULES
[SOURCE: Reuters]
California's Democratic-dominated Assembly passed=20
a bill on Wednesday that could increase=20
competition among cable television providers and=20
make it easier for telephone companies to enter=20
the market. The bill by Assembly Speaker Fabian=20
Nunez would eliminate city-by-city franchises,=20
which he said made it nearly impossible for=20
rivals with new technologies to enter=20
California's market for television entertainment=20
services. It passed by a rare unanimous vote of=20
70-0 in the often-divided Legislature, with 10=20
members not present during the Wednesday night=20
vote. "We need to set a framework that is=20
technology neutral, and we don't have that=20
currently," said bill co-sponsor Lloyd Levine.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DtechnologyNews&sto...
D=3D2006-06-01T104025Z_01_N01278706_RTRUKOC_0_US-TELECOMS-CABLE-CALIFORNIA.=
xml

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

TELECOMS CALL FOR LEGAL FIXES AFTER KATRINA
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Anne Broache]
Days after Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Gulf=20
Coast last August, repair crews hoping to breathe=20
life into a damaged telephone network were=20
temporarily blocked by government officials who=20
refused to give phone company workers permission=20
to enter a disaster-stricken area. And when=20
looting and gunfire erupted in New Orleans,=20
bureaucratic mix-ups and problems in=20
communication delayed efforts by BellSouth to=20
revive a rapidly growing number of dead telephone=20
lines that could have saved lives had they been=20
working. With the formal start of hurricane=20
season on Thursday, some of the nation's largest=20
wireless and wireline providers are vowing to=20
prevent that from happening again. Through=20
private correspondence and in public statements,=20
telecommunications companies are calling on=20
President Bush and the Department of Homeland=20
Security to change the way the government=20
responds to a natural disaster, and a federal=20
panel is expected to release a report in two=20
weeks. One answer would be to change federal=20
policy and recognize telecommunications workers=20
as "emergency responders." That designation would=20
let them work more closely with authorities on=20
the scene and to obtain "nonmonetary" federal=20
help, such as security escorts and "priority"=20
access to fuel, water and shelter. "We're not=20
looking for financial support, but the=20
recognition and the arms-and-legs support to make=20
sure we have the appropriate access at the right=20
time...to make sure infrastructure is restored as=20
soon as possible," said Michael Hickey, head of=20
Verizon's national security team and a member of=20
a Federal Communications Commission advisory panel on Hurricane Katrina.
http://news.com.com/Telecoms+call+for+legal+fixes+after+Katrina/2100-103...
-6078811.html?tag=3Dnefd.lede
* FCC panel meets 6/9: http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dnode/2465

US ASKS INTERNET FIRMS TO SAVE DATA
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Jon Swartz and Kevin Johnson]
Top law enforcement officials have asked leading=20
Internet companies to keep histories of the=20
activities of Web users for up to two years to=20
assist in criminal investigations of child=20
pornography and terrorism, the Justice Department=20
said Wednesday. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales=20
and FBI Director Robert Mueller outlined their=20
request to executives from Google, Microsoft,=20
AOL, Comcast, Verizon and others Friday in a=20
private meeting at the Justice Department. The=20
department has scheduled more discussions as=20
early as Friday. Justice is not asking the=20
companies to keep the content of e-mails,=20
spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said. It wants records=20
such as lists of e-mail traffic and Web searches,=20
he said. Roehrkasse said the government is=20
required to seek proper legal authority, such as=20
a subpoena, before obtaining the records. He said=20
any change in the retention period would not=20
alter that requirement. Law enforcement officials=20
have seen investigations derailed =93time and time=20
again=94 because of a lack of data, Roehrkasse=20
said. The government's request forces the=20
companies to strike a balance between satisfying=20
law enforcement demands and honoring the privacy of millions of customers.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060601/1a_lede01_dom.art.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060601/1a_ledebox01_dom.art.htm

QUICKLY

BILL MOYERS' ADDRESS TO PBS ANNUAL MEETING
[SOURCE: Working for Change, AUTHOR: Bill Moyers]
Bill Moyers is optimistic about the future of=20
public TV. "The telecommunications revolution is=20
upon us and special interests are counting on=20
controlling it from inside the Beltway while no=20
one is looking. Let=92s not let it happen this=20
time. Let=92s make the telecommunications=20
revolution our story. Let=92s tell the public how=20
the decisions are getting made, who=92s making them=20
and why, who will win and who will lose. Let=92s=20
own this story with reporting, hearings,=20
commentary, talking heads. Let=92s get the country=20
involved in the debate about where the Internet=20
is going, where our digital revolution is headed,=20
how our media can foster civic participation,=20
make government more accountable, give low-income=20
people a place at the table. We have it in our=20
power to bring the country into the story. We are=20
public broadcasting, right? We=92re not=20
congressional broadcasting =AD that=92s C-SPAN. We=92re=20
not the White House network =AD that=92s Fox News.=20
We=92re the only broadcasting operation in the=20
country with the words =93public=94 and =93service=94 in=20
our name. That=92s our constituency =AD not the=20
politicians and Washington officials =AD but the=20
public. The theologian H. Richard Niebuhr once=20
said the most important question a society can=20
ask is: =93What=92s going on?=94 Well, that=92s what we=20
can do now =AD tell the American people what=92s=20
going on with this digital revolution. Inform=20
them and awaken them. They'll do the rest. I've=20
been around a long time now. What great company=20
all of you have been. But I really think the best=20
is yet to come. We=92ve never been more needed.=20
Democracy is troubled. Our two parties are wholly=20
owned subsidiaries of Big Money and subservient=20
to Big Media. The majority of the American people=20
don't know where to turn, who to trust. Here we=20
are -- with a mandate to put the public first. A=20
new leader who is the right person in the right=20
place at the right time, and with roots in=20
communities around the country that constitutes=20
the building blocks of hope. We have it in our=20
reach truly to be the Public Broadcasting Service =AD a force of democracy."
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=3D20889

FRANCHISE BATTLES SPEED IPTV ROLLOUTS, SAYS REPORT
[SOURCE: Telecommunications Online, AUTHOR: Bob Wallace]
The four-way battles now raging around the=20
question of municipal, state or national=20
franchise agreements for "Telco TV" video=20
services will see the telcos ultimately prevail=20
over cable operators and local governments,=20
according to new analysis from ABI Research. This=20
would mean an accelerated deployment of IPTV=20
video services to customers, and increased sales=20
of set-top boxes, according to the research and=20
consultancy. "We are at the cusp of a strong=20
run-up in IPTV subscriber bases over the next=20
year or two," says principal analyst Michael=20
Arden. "The telcos have sympathy at the higher=20
levels of government, and in general the=20
principles of encouraging competition and=20
preventing monopoly mean that the telcos will be=20
victorious in this battle. It=92s just a question of when."
http://telecommagazine.com/newsglobe/article.asp?HH_ID=3DAR_2111

CATCH 475
[SOURCE: Bunnie Riedel]
[Commentary] How good is the FCC at handling local cable complaints?
http://www.riedelcommunications.blogspot.com/

COMCAST'S BURKE: NON-VIDEO SUBS TO TAKE LEAD
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Gary Arlen]
Comcast Corp. will have =93more non-video customers=20
than video subscribers=94 within the next five=20
years, chief operating officer Steve Burke said=20
Wednesday. The nation=92s largest cable-system=20
operator expects to have 25 million Internet and=20
voice accounts, significantly larger than its=20
current base of 21.5 million video subscribers,=20
Burke said. For instance, the number of Comcast=20
high-speed-Internet customers is growing 15%=20
annually, compared with 1% growth industrywide of multichannel-video custom=
ers.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6339823.html?display=3DBreaking+News

COMCAST TO SPEED DOWNLOADS OF SOME MOVIE, MUSIC FILES
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Dionne=20
Searcey dionne.searcey( at )wsj.com and Sarmad Ali sarmad.ali( at )wsj.com]
As the war for broadband customers continues=20
among high-speed Internet providers, Comcast=20
Corp. said it plans to add a new free broadband=20
feature to its existing Internet service that=20
will give a temporary turbocharge, doubling=20
speeds for many downloads. The feature, called=20
Powerboost, will be activated when customers are=20
downloading movies, music, graphic-heavy Web=20
pages or other services that use a large amount=20
of capacity and tend to test a typical=20
subscriber's patience. The feature will be rolled=20
out starting next week and will be given=20
automatically to customers who subscribe to=20
Comcast's six-megabits-per-second service plan=20
for $42.95 a month or eight-megabits-per-second=20
plan for $52.95 a month. The company didn't say=20
which markets were eligible for the upgrades.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114912327633568170.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
sonal_journal
(requires subscription)

MCCLATCHY COLLECTS OFFERS ON 6 PAPERS ON FINAL DAY
[SOURCE: Associated Press]
Six former Knight Ridder newspapers awaited word=20
on their fate Wednesday as McClatchy Co.=20
collected offers on the final day of bidding for=20
the newspapers, the last of 12 that McClatchy=20
intends to sell. The other six newspapers have=20
already found new owners, including The=20
Philadelphia Inquirer, which was sold to a local=20
investor group there, and four others that were=20
bought by MediaNews Group, a privately held=20
company based in Denver. That leaves six=20
newspapers in smaller markets, the largest of=20
which is the Akron Beacon Journal. There was no=20
immediate word on how many bids were submitted=20
for those papers, when the new owner McClatchy=20
might decide on possible buyers or whether the=20
papers would be sold as a group or one by one.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...
t_id=3D1002611401

AD SPENDING UP FOR BROADCAST NETWORKS IN Q1
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Jon Lafayette]
Boosted by the Winter Olympics on NBC,=20
advertising spending on broadcast network TV rose=20
12.3 percent to $6.5 billion in the first quarter=20
of 2006, according to data from TNS Media Intelligence.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=3D10099
(requires free registration)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online=20
news summary service provided by the Benton=20
Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday=20
through Friday, this service provides updates on=20
important industry developments, policy issues,=20
and other related news events. While the=20
summaries are factually accurate, their often=20
informal tone does not always represent the tone=20
of the original articles. Headlines are compiled=20
by Kevin Taglang headlines( at )benton.org -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Coverage Type 

MARTIN: MULTICAST MUST-CARRY VOTE 6/15
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
The agenda for the June 15 FCC open meeting will be announced on June 8 -- what will be on it? Apparently a new proceeding that would propose to change agency policy established in 2001 concerning how many broadcast TV station signals end up on local cable TV systems. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin seeks to reverse a FCC decision that just one digital television channel for each broadcaster be required to be carried on cable. With digital TV technology broadcasters will be able to air multiple, simultaneous signals (perhaps as many as six); in the land of the wonks this is know as multicasting. Under Chairman Martin’s proposal, if a digital-TV station demands cable carriage of multiple programming streams, the cable operator would be required to carry them. Led by the NAB, TV stations have urged the FCC to expand the must-carry requirement to include all digital-TV signals that consumers can view over-the-air free-of-charge. The FCC rejected the idea in February 2005 in a 4-1 vote, affirming the same decision in 2001. The agency found that multicasting mandates would impose a First Amendment burden on cable without advancing important governmental interests, such as the preservation of free, over-the-air local TV or advancement of the digital-TV transition. “I believe that reading the statute now as expansively as broadcasters urge would likely wither before a First Amendment challenge,” said then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell Then-Commissioner Martin, the lone dissenter, disagreed, saying that the burden of digital must-carry would be “significantly less” than analog must-carry due to compression technology. Cable, he added, would not have to set aside more than one-third of its channel capacity for must-carry obligations. “The burden on cable capacity … is capped by statute, a cap that has been upheld by the Supreme Court,” Commissioner Martin said. If the FCC adopts rules under Martin, cable operators and programmers are highly likely to wage a court battle by arguing that multicast must-carry would violate First Amendment freedoms and take private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. "The FCC already has twice rejected a multicasting mandate, and no new evidence has been presented that justifies a different result. In fact, working directly with local broadcasters, cable operators have added hundreds of digital-broadcast channels to their lineups nationwide and have effectively implemented a privately negotiated agreement with public television to ensure broad carriage of digital public TV stations across the country,” National Cable & Telecommunications Association spokesman Brian Dietz said.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6339174.html?display=Breaking+News

* Full FCC Could Boost Multicast Fortunes
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339122?display=Breaking+News


http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6339174.html?display=Breaking%20News
Coverage Type 

COULD GIVING VOTERS ON-DEMAND CONTENT GET THEM INTERESTED?
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Grant peter.grant@wsj.com]
[Commentary] Few would disagree that a more informed electorate is desirable. In a survey of eligible voters just before the 2000 election by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, 84% of respondents couldn't identify either the incumbent or the challenger in their U.S. congressional races. On-demand TV could fight this trend by airing debates and public meetings, such as city-council hearings. There also could be channels devoted to such simple but useful subjects as the voting records of elected officials. But will cable operators fulfill the political potential of on-demand? There is encouraging precedent here. The industry created the public-affairs network C-SPAN in the late 1970s in recognition of its civic responsibility. Some cable operators, however, let executives at the local level choose on-demand content, and they have little incentive to explore its political potential. Others feel they've met their obligations with the public-access channels they are required by law to make available. They also point to the minuscule viewership most of these public-access channels get, as well as the offensive content they occasionally contain, ranging from nudity to white supremacy. Cable companies can't legally prohibit content on certain access channels if it conforms to guidelines, which are pretty loose. It might be time to re-examine cable's public-access requirements in light of this new technology. The timing is perfect because Congress is in the midst of considering a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act. The discussions in both the House and the Senate already have touched on the fees cable companies must contribute to public-access channels. Perhaps they could negotiate a trade-off of some public-access channels for more on-demand content. No one is suggesting public-access channels be eliminated. Some attract a decent audience and provide important services, giving a forum to underserved communities and offering educational shows. Also, public-access channels are available to practically all cable subscribers on analog tiers of programming, while only subscribers who pay extra for digital cable can get on-demand. But most cable companies plan to switch to all-digital systems. Operators and customers alike would see a big benefit from moving government and political content to on-demand. Operators would find more precious bandwidth to free up for high-definition content. Viewers would be better served by having, say, a city-council meeting available on-demand rather than on an analog channel. In addition to convenience, they could fast-forward through the pothole committee report to get to the matters that concern them. Unfortunately, a trade-off won't be easy. The Alliance for Community Media, a lobbying group for public access, opposes giving back bandwidth. Some elected officials also are wary of yet more visibility. C-SPAN cameras weren't allowed in the U.S. Senate until seven years after they started in the House. "You have people who say, 'I got elected without this,' " says Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's chief executive. "They don't want to change."
COULD GIVING VOTERS ON-DEMAND CONTENT GET THEM INTERESTED?
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Grant peter.grant@wsj.com]
[Commentary] Few would disagree that a more informed electorate is desirable. In a survey of eligible voters just before the 2000 election by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, 84% of respondents couldn't identify either the incumbent or the challenger in their U.S. congressional races. On-demand TV could fight this trend by airing debates and public meetings, such as city-council hearings. There also could be channels devoted to such simple but useful subjects as the voting records of elected officials. But will cable operators fulfill the political potential of on-demand? There is encouraging precedent here. The industry created the public-affairs network C-SPAN in the late 1970s in recognition of its civic responsibility. Some cable operators, however, let executives at the local level choose on-demand content, and they have little incentive to explore its political potential. Others feel they've met their obligations with the public-access channels they are required by law to make available. They also point to the minuscule viewership most of these public-access channels get, as well as the offensive content they occasionally contain, ranging from nudity to white supremacy. Cable companies can't legally prohibit content on certain access channels if it conforms to guidelines, which are pretty loose. It might be time to re-examine cable's public-access requirements in light of this new technology. The timing is perfect because Congress is in the midst of considering a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act. The discussions in both the House and the Senate already have touched on the fees cable companies must contribute to public-access channels. Perhaps they could negotiate a trade-off of some public-access channels for more on-demand content. No one is suggesting public-access channels be eliminated. Some attract a decent audience and provide important services, giving a forum to underserved communities and offering educational shows. Also, public-access channels are available to practically all cable subscribers on analog tiers of programming, while only subscribers who pay extra for digital cable can get on-demand. But most cable companies plan to switch to all-digital systems. Operators and customers alike would see a big benefit from moving government and political content to on-demand. Operators would find more precious bandwidth to free up for high-definition content. Viewers would be better served by having, say, a city-council meeting available on-demand rather than on an analog channel. In addition to convenience, they could fast-forward through the pothole committee report to get to the matters that concern them. Unfortunately, a trade-off won't be easy. The Alliance for Community Media, a lobbying group for public access, opposes giving back bandwidth. Some elected officials also are wary of yet more visibility. C-SPAN cameras weren't allowed in the U.S. Senate until seven years after they started in the House. "You have people who say, 'I got elected without this,' " says Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's chief executive. "They don't want to change."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114903389207066918.html?mod=todays_us_ma...
(requires subscription)


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114903389207066918.html?mod=todays_us_marketplac…
Coverage Type 

FIRMS FORK OVER FUNDS FOR CABLE RATE CAMPAIGN
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Heather Greenfield]
Telecom companies are spending serious green on advertising in recent weeks alerting Congress and their staffers to what they call a serious cause -- a grassroots campaign for lower cable and broadband rates. The advertising came amid debates on broader telecom legislation as part of H.R. 5252, a telecom bill offered by House Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) and House Judiciary Committee legislation on net neutrality, H.R. 5417, which received committee approval Thursday. The Senate debated a similar measure Thursday. Gary Arlen of Arlen Communications estimates the costs of local TV ads at nearly $1 million per week. "I was struck by how much saturation advertising was going on the Barton bill," Arlen said. Arlen released a brief study estimating that the U.S. Telecom Association spent $250,000 a week over six weeks. USTA represents the majority of the Bell telecommunications firms. Arlen believes AT&T spent $600,000 per week. TV4US, which bills itself as a grassroots coalition funded by a half-dozen corporate sponsors, spent $75,000 per week. One of its sponsors is AT&T. "These guys are intelligently making their media buys next to newscasts or talk shows," Arlen said.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-LWCN1149016201609.html


Firms Fork Over Funds For Cable Rate Campaign
Coverage Type 

CABLE SUES USDA OVER NET SUBSIDY
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Iowa Cable & Telecommunications Association and cable company Mediacom have filed suit in federal court charging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's broadband grant/loan program is a failure and actually undermines the broadband deployment it is designed to promote. The suit, which asserts the loan program should be used primarily to fund broadband in rural, unserved areas, follows a USDA Inspector General report finding that "hundreds of millions" in low-interest loans were made to companies providing service in affluent communities, some with already two or more broadband providers.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339331?display=Breaking+News


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339331?display=Breaking%20News
Coverage Type 

AMERICA CHANNEL SUES COMCAST/TW
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The America Channel has sued Time Warner and Comcast, seeking to block their purchase and divvying up of bankrupt cable company Adelphia. The channel argues that the companies are monopolies that exclude competitors and restrain trade.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339350?display=Breaking+News


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6339350?display=Breaking%20News
Coverage Type 

INDECENCY BILL WAITS FOR CONGRESS
[SOURCE: The Hollywood Reporter, AUTHOR: Brooks Boliek]
Both the House and the Senate have passed versions of bills that would raise the amount of fines on broadcasters who air indecent programming. While there is sentiment among some key House members to push for their version of the bill, the House majority leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) said Thursday that the House will take up the Senate's version of broadcast indecency legislation during the first week in June, when the House returns. The decision comes as lawmakers realize that the Senate version, authored by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) has the best chance of winning final approval as the legislative workdays dwindle. Congress is scheduled to adjourn Oct. 6, but there are several pre-election recesses and holidays that intervene, making time the enemy of any legislative effort. Senators have balked at several provisions in the House bill, including the increase in fines for individuals and the three-strikes provision. While Uptown's legislation won quick approval by the House after the Janet Jackson breast-baring incident during the 2004 Super Bowl, it ran into trouble in the Senate as lawmakers there worried about overreaching. Eventually, under pressure from conservative and Christian activists, the Senate leadership won approval of Brownback's bill. The decision by the House to agree to the Senate bill is a realization that the tougher House bill likely would fail to pass in the Senate. That, and agreement by pressure groups pushing the legislation, makes approval of the bill in June likely.
http://www.billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/business/leg_reg/...


Indecency Bill Waits For Congress
Coverage Type 

TATE PROMOTES POSITIVE PROGRAMMING ALLIANCE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Republican FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate wants to work with fellow Tennessean, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to help better arm "modern day David[s] trying to influence the Goliath of inappropriate content," saying "that's where the government -- and indecency laws -- can play a role." That call for an alliance came in a letter to Sen Frist Tuesday praising him for fast-tracking an indecency bill that ups the FCC fines by 10 times, to $325,000. "In the coming weeks, I hope that we can work together to address these important issues and to be a voice for families," Commissioner Tate told Sen Frist. She said that indecency legislation was just "one step," and that there is "so much more we can do." Tate did not talk specifics, but told Sen Frist she hoped he would "consider other, positive measures that will encourage the production and broadcast of quality children's programming as well." While she said that families are the first line of defense against course content, she also said that, as parents, "we can't be everywhere at once," and suggested TV needed to help in that parenting function, a suggestion supported by a study last week that found that the majority of parents use the TV to help them mind the kids.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6338858?display=Breaking+News


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6338858?display=Breaking%20News
Coverage Type 

TRIBUNE BUYING BACK $2 BILLION IN STOCK
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John M. Higgins]
The Tribune Company has decided to spend $2 billion buying back its own shares. The buyback is immense for a company the size of the newspaper publisher and broadcaster, representing around 25% of all of the company’s outstanding shares. Tribune is moving for an instant effect in its stock price. While most companies spread their buyback programs over many months, Tribune will immediately tender for up to 53 million shares in the open market. The company will buy another 10 million shares from its largest shareholders, the McCormick Tribune Foundation and Cantigny Foundation. Finally, Tribune will buy another 12 million shares in the open market. The company plans to borrow money to finance the buyback, but will partly offset that by selling around $500 million in assets. Tribune would not specify what would go on the block, citing only non-core broadcasting and publishing assets, real estate and securities. On possible asset is a 31% stake in Food Network that Morgan Stanley media analyst Doug Arthur estimates that Tribune estimates is worth $800 million.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6338945?display=Breaking+News
* Tribune's Response To News Blues: A Big Buyback
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114900492721266404.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6338945?display=Breaking%20News
Coverage Type 

THE EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER MYTH
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Thomas W. Hazlett, George Mason University]
[Commentary] Does it make Johnny or Suzie smarter to seat them in front of a start-up screen? Learning is mostly about growing an ability to think, and web surfing skills scarcely pings the higher cerebral reaches. At worst, the classroom PC sucks up valuable oxygen, diverting youngsters from frog dissections, multiplication tables, and the ABCs. These nurture the brain in time-tested exercises. The test of time may appear a weak empirical standard, but the asserted correlation between smart boxes and smart students is weaker still. As Clifford Stoll opined a decade ago about educational TV and classroom PCs: “Both give you the sensation that merely by watching a screen, you can acquire information without work and discipline.” The point is that modern systems - from networked communications to artificial intelligence - are not a boon to mankind, or that children should be barred from enjoying their fruits. It is that computers, which complement the sweaty mental work-outs that grow young minds into strong thinkers, do not substitute for exercise. Throwing laptops at the education problem is, alas, a whole lot easier than figuring out how to actually teach kids. In the sound-bite world, computers equal smart and key demographics swoon for magic in the classroom.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a8ad9d82-f094-11da-9338-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)


The Educational Computer Myth