Benton RSS Feed
COPPS DECRIES FCC INACTION ON MEDIA RULES, CABLE MERGER
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: David Hatch]
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps complained that the agency is dragging its feet on a court-ordered review of media ownership regulations and the proposed acquisition of bankrupt Adelphia Communications by Comcast and Time Warner. Immediate action on both matters would be to the Democrats' advantage because the agency is split 2-2 along party lines, pending the confirmation of Republican Robert McDowell to fill a fifth FCC seat. Reasoning that a GOP majority at the FCC would be less likely to impose tough conditions on the Adelphia purchase, Time Warner Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Parsons originally urged the FCC to delay its review pending the addition of McDowell. But sources said Tuesday that Time Warner and Comcast subsequently have urged the FCC to proceed because the parties want the review completed by July 31, when they are permitted to abandon the deal under the terms of the agreement. Chairman Martin has stated that he is awaiting a full complement of regulators at the FCC before addressing media ownership. But on Tuesday, Tamara Lipper, a special adviser to Martin, put the onus on the agency's two Democrats, who are at odds with their GOP counterparts. "If any commissioner has changed his mind where they are on the issue, the chairman is ready to go," she said.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-JVUK1148489411448.html
Copps Decries FCC Inaction On Media Rules, Cable Merger
GONZALES'S RATIONALE ON PHONE DATA DISPUTED
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Walter Pincus]
Civil liberties lawyers questioned the legal basis that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales used Tuesday to justify the constitutionality of collecting domestic telephone records as part of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism program. While not confirming a USA Today report May 11 saying the National Security Agency has been collecting phone-call records of millions of Americans, Gonzales said such an activity would not require a court warrant under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling because it involved obtaining "business records." Under the 27-year-old court ruling in Smith v. Maryland , "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection," Gonzales said. "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records," he added. Noting that Congress in 1986 passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in reaction to the Smith v. Maryland ruling to require court orders before turning over call records to the government, G. Jack King Jr. of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said Gonzales is correct in saying "the administration isn't violating the Fourth Amendment" but "he's failing to acknowledge that it is breaking" the 1986 law, which requires a court order "with a few very narrow exceptions." Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "The government is bound by the laws Congress passes, and when the attorney general doesn't even mention them, it is symptomatic of the government's profound disrespect for the rule of law."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR200605...
(requires registration)
* NSA, the FCC and White House Martin’s, and Sen. Stevens: Beyond Cover-up
http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=42
Gonzales's Rationale on Phone Data Disputed
MAKE CABLE GO A LA CARTE
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Sen John McCain (R-AZ) & FCC Chairman Kevin Martin]
[Commentary] American consumers have little choice when it comes to cable television. If you want ESPN, you must pay for 60-plus channels that you may never watch. If your child loves Nickelodeon, your family must pay for the same 60-plus channels, some of which may not be suitable for young children. Now, imagine deciding for yourself which TV channels you want to purchase. You could select the channels you want to pay for, and opt out of those you don't. In fact, right now millions of TV viewers outside the U.S. have these choices. They buy their television channels individually or in smaller bundles — and get better deals as a result. Why can't Americans do this now? Because there is too little competition, too much regulation and not enough consumer choice in the cable TV business. The solution to high cable bills isn't price controls or additional government regulation. It is more competition and more choice. For that reason, Congress should pass the proposed Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment Act — the CHOICE Act — which is being introduced today. It would allow cable companies to compete nationally for your business (rather than only at the local level) in exchange for agreeing to offer channels a la carte, either individually or in smaller bundles.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-mccain25may25,1,1...
(requires registration)
* McCain Unveils a la Carte Bill
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6338312.html?display=Breaking+News
McCain & Martin: Make cable go a la carte
NET NEUTRALITY FANS PRESSURE US SENATE
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
One day before Republicans plan a Senate hearing on a new telecommunications bill without Net neutrality regulations, backers of the concept have thrown their support behind a competing proposal with far more extensive federal rules. During a conference call on Wednesday, representatives from Amazon.com, Google, universities participating in the Internet2 project and liberal advocacy groups all called for strict laws that would prohibit what they view as a two-tier Internet. "Tomorrow is a very important day for the future of the Internet," said Paul Misener, an Amazon vice president. He warned that phone and cable companies will run roughshod over their customers "unless Congress acts to stop them" by approving alternative legislation prepared by Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.
http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+fans+pressure+U.S.+Senate/2100-1028_3...
* Congress Debates Network Neutrality
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/net_5-24.html
Net neutrality fans pressure U.S. Senate
UNUSUAL ALLIANCES EMERGE IN NET NEUTRALITY DEBATE
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Heather Greenfield]
What do Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails have in common with the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America and Google? They are all working in support of network neutrality. In the past, if Reznor and Christian groups were mentioned in the same sentence in Washington, the topic likely was labeling to warn parents about raunchy lyrics -- and they were on opposite sides of the issue. While all is not entirely forgiven, the battle to ensure net neutrality has created an atmosphere where the lion can lie with the lamb. "We believe this issue is so important because of free speech," Christian Coalition spokeswoman Michele Combs said. She said her group is concerned that if a cable company has a board that favors abortion rights, it could charge an anti-abortion group more to deliver its messages over that firm's broadband network. Combs said embracing unusual partners is worth it to fight for "a family issue," noting that "Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a zero on our congressional report card, but we partnered with him on this."
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-GCBA1148490433740.html
Unusual Alliances Emerge In Net Neutrality Debate
THE INTERNET'S LONG WAR
[SOURCE: TomPaine, AUTHOR: Dawn Holian, Common Cause]
[Commentary] Telephone and cable companies would like to transform our Internet from a medium that allows people to connect to one another, engage in debate, and learn about the world into little more than a portal to sell goods and transmit television programs, films and games. And they’re likely to get their way unless Congress acts. On Thursday, the House Judiciary will be voting on a key piece of legislation to protect the Internet we know it, an Internet that is in jeopardy because of recent decisions by federal regulators. Why is Common Cause so concerned about a seemingly obscure telecommunications issue? Because we care about the potential of the Internet to spur citizen engagement in their democracy. We know how democratic discourse has benefited from this technological marvel. In 2004, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 63 million Americans went online for political news. An estimated seven million individuals asked for e-mail updates from candidates, and four million donated money online to parties and campaigns. That involvement is only growing. Millions of citizens access information from advocacy web sites ranging from Amnesty International to the National Rifle Association. And e-activists are transforming the way citizens communicate with their elected officials and have their opinions heard on the most pressing issues of the day. But this Renaissance will be cut short if access to the Internet is determined by corporations more interested in selling goods and entertainment than in encouraging democratic discourse. The Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act is critical to protecting our digital future.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/24/the_internets_long_war.php
* Consumer Groups: Network Neutrality Is an Antitrust Issue
http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=137
* Pending Internet neutrality legislation is vital to preserving independent Web content and expression
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/3883948.html
* House Judiciary Committee Mark-up Today
http://judiciary.house.gov/markup.aspx?ID=132
The Internet's Long War
'RECOUPING AN INVESTMENT' MEANS 'HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLET'
[SOURCE: Paul Kapustka's Blog]
[Commentary] When the telcos argue against network neutrality, one central theme is that without tiered pricing plans, they won't be able to "recoup their investment" in all these great new services they plan to build. The question to ask is, from where will that "recouping" come? The answer can be found in your wallet. In a conference call this morning with reporters, proponents of network neutrality are finally coalescing behind this idea, and it's a powerful one: The battle is not (as the telcos want you to believe) between them and the Googles of the world, but between telcos and customers -- with customers the ones who will have to pay the freight for the telcos' new shiny networks. Why? Even I can figure this one out. If the phone companies are allowed to charge for tiered Internet services -- much like how cable companies charge for channel plans -- their "partners" in the deals (for video, music, gaming, whatever) are most likely NOT going to "share the costs." On the contrary: just like cable, the telcos are going to have to PAY EXTRA to host specialized content. Just like cablecos pay ESPN a few bucks per customer, so will phone companies have to pay for their content. And who will pay the vig? That's right, you and me.
http://paulsblog.pulver.com/archives/2006/05/recouping_an_in.html
'Recouping an investment' means 'Hold on to your wallet'
HUTCHISON UNVEILS STATE FRANCHISING BILL
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) introduced a bill Tuesday that would require state governments to become cable-franchising authorities in lieu of thousands of cities and towns that have been exercising that authority for decades. The bill (S. 2989), modeled after a Texas law passed last year, appears designed to speed phone-company entry into local cable markets, as state governments would have 17 business days to grant valid franchise applications and could not impose market-buildout requirements on new entrants. Sen Hutchison, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, might offer her bill as an amendment to a major telecommunications bill (S. 2686) sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) when the panel meets June 20 to vote on Stevens’ bill. Under the Stevens bill, local governments would retain the right to serve as cable-franchising authorities, but they would generally need to approve new cable-franchise applications within 30 days under a streamlined process crafted by the Federal Communications Commission. Sen Hutchison’s bill would allow large incumbent cable operators to obtain state franchises only following the expirations of their local agreements. A small cable incumbent -- defined as having fewer than 40% of subscribers in a franchise area -- could terminate its local agreement and seek a state franchise not later than 120 days after the Hutchison bill became law. In her bill, Hutchison would allow providers of cable service or Internet protocol TV to apply for a state franchise. State franchisees must pay 5% of gross revenue -- which would not include income from advertising -- to compensate local governments for use of public rights of way. State franchisees would be barred from denying cable service or video service to “any group of potential residential subscribers†based on income. Individuals denied service and local governments would be eligible to file complaints with the state to seek enforcement. State regulators and the courts would be required to give state franchisees that run afoul of the nondiscrimination ban “a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable or video service to all households within a designated franchise area.†In terms of compliance, state franchisees could either extend their wireline facilities or make “use of an alternative technology that provides comparable content, service and functionality.â€
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6337841.html?display=Breaking+News
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6337841.html?display=Breaking%20News
SENATE DEMOCRATIC STAFF FLOATS FRANCHISE BILL
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
A telephone company could get a local cable franchise within 30 days if it agreed to the terms and conditions of the franchise most recently granted to the market's cable incumbent, according to a draft bill prepared by staff to Senate Commerce Committee Democrats. The bill, designed to update the Telecommunications Act of 1996, would phase in franchisewide buildout requirements on phone companies and impose Internet-nondiscrimination mandates on broadband-access providers. It would also bar cable operators under many conditions from withholding programming not delivered via satellite. Under the bill, a phone company unwilling to sign the incumbent's franchise agreement could negotiate different terms with local regulators during a 60-day window. If those talks failed, the phone company would be allowed to enter the video market within 30 days under "standard franchise" -- a default mechanism that includes a 5% franchise fee and other conditions specified in the bill. Cable incumbents can escape their local franchises and obtain a standard franchise after another video provider with a standard franchise offers service to more than 5% of homes in the same franchise area. The net-neutrality provisions track terms in a Senate bill introduced last Friday by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii): no blocking or degrading of Internet traffic and no demands for payment for the prioritization of unaffiliated Web content, data, and applications. The bill would alter program-access laws. Cable operators that terrestrially distribute program networks that they owned would be required to sell the programming to competing pay TV distributors. A cable company that distributes national sports programming could withhold the programming from a competing distributor that itself has exclusive rights to distribute national sports programming.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6337883.html?display=Breaking+News
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6337883.html?display=Breaking%20News
LOCAL CABLE AND ALL ITS SERVICES ARE THREATENED
[SOURCE: Minneapolis Star Tribune, AUTHOR: Rick Talbot And Steve Larson, North Suburban Access Corp./CTV-15]
[Commentary] The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006, introduced by House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, could end local sports and election coverage and other community programming in the Twin Cities area. The bill would preempt state law and local franchises that require cable television providers to serve an entire city and allow the new providers to cherry-pick where they provide service. Although the bill looks like it leaves management of the public rights-of-way to local governments, in fact, all disputes about local rights-of-way rules and regulations must be appealed to the Federal Communications Commission, not state court. This puts ultimate control of our local streets and roads in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., a thousand miles away. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine untrained officials trying to resolve a local dispute over an ill-placed 6-foot-high fiber box in a resident's yard. Of equal concern, in order to get a national license to provide cable television service, all an applicant has to do is file the company's name, address and telephone number with the FCC. Although the bill was written to benefit telephone companies Verizon, AT&T and Qwest, the reality is that, under this scheme, a bankrupt, convicted felon could apply for a license and, 30 days later, start digging up the streets in our cities. If you believe in localism, in being able to watch your local government or your next-door neighbor on television, and in control of your local rights-of-way management, contact the members of Congress immediately.
http://www.startribune.com/142/story/446269.html
Local cable and all its services are threatened