Benton RSS Feed

SENATE JUDICIARY PANEL EYES TELECOM PROPOSAL
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Sarah Lai Stirland]
The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to seek a role in reshaping telecommunications law, according to a committee aide. At least three panel members are concerned about some of the issues addressed in the telecommunications bill crafted by Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and unveiled last week, the aide said. "Net neutrality is something we have significant jurisdiction over," the aide said, referring to the question of whether the Bell telecommunications and cable companies should be barred from charging Internet companies for speedier content delivery. "It's basically a vertical integration issue that involves competition policy, not directly telecommunications policy." Three senators on the Judiciary panel also are concerned about antitrust, copyright policy, distance learning and rights-of-way issues presented in the telecom bill. They include Judiciary ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Herb Kohl (D-WI). A spokesman said Sen Kohl has not sought to take any action on the telecom reform bill, and noted that the committee already has plans to examine competition policy issues in a hearing about the proposed AT&T and SBC Communications merger later this month.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-DCKL1147370676551.html

* Committees Debate Telecom Bill Jurisdiction
[SOURCE: Multichannel News 5/12, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6334506.html?display=Breaking+News

AT&T FAKING CONCERN FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
[SOURCE: Broadband Reports, AUTHOR: Karl Bode]
[Commentary] AT&T is getting a lot of press for its announcement this week that it is making an effort to reach broadband have-nots with wireless, satellite, and "Project Lightspeed." Buried amidst the bubbly news and analyst coverage, only CNET's Russell Shaw seemed to remember that AT&T is in the middle of a political fight to eliminate local franchises and deployment requirements from state and federal laws. This has already resulted in ample complaints that the company is redlining -- or ignoring less affluent or rural areas as it upgrades its network to VDSL2 & fiber. The company's announcement prepares a counter to these arguments by allowing AT&T to say that it is making an effort to reach these customers. However, looking closely at the announcement, not much really changed from a hard-deployment perspective: 1) The Wild-Blue deal re-brands satellite broadband that was already available to rural Americans. 2) The "Project Lightspeed" plan to "pass" 5.5 million low-income households was already calculated. In part, we'll cynically assume, to skirt redlining allegations. No new deployment was actually announced, and the project remains in trials. 3) The plans for two new fixed wireless trial locations is far from broad deployment. Do we believe AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre when he suggests these new moves "could help bring broadband to as many as 11.5 million additional homes and businesses?" Or do we assume AT&T is doing a song and dance for representatives of these regions to gain political favor?
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/74298

AMAZON VP PAUL MISENER MAKES THE CASE FOR NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: E-Commerce Times, AUTHOR: Erika Morphy]
An interview with Paul Misener, vice president of Global Public Policy for Amazon.com. An engineer by profession, Misener has worked at the Federal Communications Commission -- a background that allows him to speak from both a regulatory and technical perspective when he testifies to Congress, which he does frequently. What's a worse case scenario, if net neutrality isn't made law? "Carriers say they would prioritize content based on economic reasons. But if they have that latitude for financial purposes, then they can also do it for political reasons. A carrier could block access to a labor union site during a dispute. It could block access to a Web site after a special interest group makes a lot of noise about it. It could even block a political site to curry favor with the current administration. All that sounds far fetched, but the whole point is that there is nothing in place to stop carriers from doing it. So why dismantle the protection?
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/50442.html

AS FREEDOM SHRINKS, TEENS SEEK MYSPACE TO HANG OUT
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jill Serjeant]
Although originally aimed at 20-somethings interested in independent music, Web sites like MySpace.com, which is owned by News Corp, have attracted an enormous following among middle school students, and cultural theorists say it's not hard to see why. As the real world is perceived as more dangerous with child abductors lurking on every corner, kids flock online to hang out with friends, express their hopes and dreams and bare their souls with often painful honesty -- mostly unbeknownst to their tech-clumsy parents. "We have a complete culture of fear," said Danah Boyd, 28, a Ph.D student and social media researcher at the University of California Berkeley. "Kids really have no place where they are not under constant surveillance." Driven to and from school, chaperoned at parties and often lacking public transport, today's middle-class American kids are no longer free to hang out unsupervised at the park, the bowling alley or to bike around the neighborhood they way they did 20 years ago. "A lot of that coming-of-age stuff in public is gone. So kids are creating social spaces within all this controlled space," said Boyd.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID...