Benton RSS Feed

MCCAIN A LA CARTE BILL EXPECTED SOON
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Alexander Bolton]
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is planning to introduce legislation on cable television programming that is expected to put him at odds with several of the nation’s largest Christian television networks and could complicate his effort to woo social conservatives for the 2008 presidential election. Specifically, Sen McCain is expected to unveil a bill this week that would give cable companies regulatory incentives to offer their customers content on a channel-by-channel basis, which is known as “a la carte” programming because of its resemblance to restaurant menus that price entrees and side orders separately. But large Christian broadcasters are strongly opposed to the approach because they fear that many consumers will skip over their channels when custom-ordering a cable programming package. Religious programming, they concede privately, though good for you, is not always the most enticing fare -- at least for many consumers. The Christian broadcasters opposed to McCain’s approach, such as the Christian Broadcasting Network and “The Old-Time Gospel Hour,” are affiliated with powerful conservative leaders such as the Rev. Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, respectively.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051006/new...

PROPOSED RULE CHANGES WOULD TANGLE THE WEB
[SOURCE: Baltimore Sun 5/9, AUTHOR: Michael Socolow, University of Maine]
[Commentary] Why should you care about the net neutrality provisions in pending telecom bills in Congress? Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web. The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence. The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC. Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history. Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.internet09may09,0,4...

See also --
* Tech Allies Split On 'Net Neutrality'
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-KFJT1147205296597.html

KEEP THE INTERNET FREE, FAST
[SOURCE: The Miami Herald, AUTHOR: Chellie Pingree, Common Cause]
[Commentary] A two-tiered Internet would put small businesses, nonprofits, entrepreneurs, political candidates and local governments at a significant disadvantage and stifle the innovation that has brought us Google, eBay, the blogosphere, instant messaging and so much more. Failure to preserve net neutrality now would open the door to allowing Internet service providers to discriminate against websites and services that can't or won't pay for access to the "fast lane." If network providers are allowed to control the flow of information, the open and freewheeling nature of the Internet could be lost. Why is Common Cause so concerned about a telecommunications bill? COPE threatens 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 websites 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. So far, this is a message that our elected officials have not heard. Indeed, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., one of the bill's sponsors, predicted that COPE would win next week in the House by a majority of 280 or 290 votes. If that prediction comes true, our democracy will be the poorer for it.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14532935.htm?template=...

PLAN FOR ADULT AREA SPARKS A FIGHT ON CONTROL OF WEB
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Christopher Rhoads christopher.rhoads@wsj.com]
Stuart Lawley wants to create a new Internet neighborhood for the adult-entertainment industry: dot-xxx. The 43-year-old British entrepreneur believes the new three-letter ending for Web-site addresses would help protect children from online pornography, by making it easier to filter such material. He also hopes to make a pile of money by collecting fees for registering dot-xxx sites. The matter, which could be voted on as early as today by the organization that governs domain names, has triggered a rancorous global debate involving freedom-of-speech advocates, child-protection groups, adult-content providers, foreign governments and conservative Christian groups. Mr. Lawley's proposal also raises thorny issues for the U.S. government, which funded the creation of the Internet and has long played a behind-the-scenes role in running it. As the Internet grows as a place of business and a forum for exchanging ideas, some have argued that it shouldn't be dominated by any one country. That discontent has prompted a few countries and regions to begin breaking away and forming their own Internet-like computer networks -- a threat to the universality that makes the Internet such a powerful tool. The Commerce Department has expressed reservations about the dot-xxx measure, amid a flood of email from conservative groups, according to internal government documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. In one document, the department made clear that it could block the proposal if the domain-name organization, called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, approves it. As a result of the concerns, Icann has postponed several scheduled votes since last August.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114722804052548561.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)