S.2686 the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006
Submitted by admin on Mon, 05/01/2006 - 18:15Summary
Procedure Step
Supporters
Detractors
Online comment form
Benton RSS Feed
May 1, 2006
PTC SLAMS STEVENS ON SMUT NON-BILL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Parents Television Council reacted Monday to the news that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) had no plans to bring up an indecency bill in his committee until industry self-regulation has been given a chance to work. In a statement, PTC President Brent Bozell accused Sen Stevens of "holding the popular legislation as a political hostage instead of protecting children from the graphic sex, violence and foul language that can be found on broadcast television." "We are not advocating a specific piece of legislation," PTC spokesman Dan Isett said. Why not let the industry self-regulation efforts play out? "I think the industry has been very clear about their idea of self-regulation," he said. "It is to file suit, claiming they should have the ability to air the "f" and "s" words anytime of day, no matter who is watching."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6330308?display=Breaking+News
See also --
* Christian Coalition Sends Martin Thank-You Note
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Christian Coalition has asked its members to send FCC Chairman Kevin Martin a thank-you note for the FCC's recent proposed indecency fines, among other things. "Chairman Martin has done a tremendous job in enforcing the indecency rules, such as proposing a record $3.6 million fine against dozens of CBS stations and affiliates for indecency on television," the group says.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6330194?display=Breaking+News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6330308?display=Breaking%20News
May 1, 2006
VIEWERS FAVOR UNFETTERED CABLE PROGRAMMING
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Almost two thirds of respondents in a new poll say the government should keep its hands off cable programming, while almost half say that cable is "rarely or almost never objectionable." That is according to a just-released Arbitron study on the "Consumer’s Relationship with Cable TV." The "government hands off" number is even higher for premium channels like HBO and Showtime, with 77% saying that programming should be unrestricted. A majority, 54%, say they want to be able to assemble their own channel lineups (a la carte), while 42% say they would opt for the current model. More people (47%) would prefer ad-supported free video-on-demand (VOD) content than to pay even a small fee (99 cents, say), per show for ad-free VOD.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6330065?display=Breaking+News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6330065?display=Breaking%20News
May 1, 2006
CITIES DEPLOYING WI-FI FACE CHALLENGES
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Marguerite Reardon]
The number of cities interested in building their own wireless networks is on the rise, but judging from the few cities that have begun offering service, deploying a citywide Wi-Fi network is more complicated than it may first appear.
http://news.com.com/Cities+deploying+Wi-Fi+face+challenges/2100-7351_3-6...
Cities deploying Wi-Fi face challenges
May 1, 2006
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS URGE CONGRESS TO VOTE 'NO' ON COPE
[SOURCE: National League of Cities press release]
The telecom reform bill, as it now stands, will, in effect, silence the voices of consumers and local governments. If enacted, consumers will be at the mercy of telecommunication giants and the federal government when faced with concerns about their television and advanced Internet services. This measure leaves the door wide open for service providers to pick and choose which neighborhoods get premium services and which get no service at all. Local governments continue to urge Congress to protect our taxpaying consumers and maintain local government oversight of service providers. We urge them to vote "no" on the COPE bill when it comes before the House. Specific concerns are: 1) The bill strips local governments of their authority to franchise the use of public rights-of-way for video/cable services and gives that authority to the federal government. The FCC has never had the authority to regulate local public rights-of-way and has no expertise concerning local streets, sidewalks, public safety or traffic patterns. 2) The bill gives the federal government the authority to oversee and second-guess all local rights-of-way management practices and all customer service issues. 3) The bill allows broadband-video service providers to pick and choose which neighborhoods they want to serve while bypassing all others completely. The bill would even allow broadband/video providers to avoid maintaining or upgrading facilities in poorer neighborhoods while affluent neighborhoods receive cutting-edge services and lower prices.
http://www.nlc.org/Newsroom/Press_Room/9752.cfm
* As Fight Against Telco/Cable Net Monopoly Looms for House Floor, the Barton-Rush Bill Should Be Scuttled
http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=33
Local Governments Urge Congress to Vote 'No' on COPE
May 1, 2006
ANTITRUST LAW AIMED AT NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), members of the House Judiciary Committee, are drafting a bill designed to impose antitrust penalties on broadband-access providers that attempt to demand fees from Web-content providers in exchange for priority treatment of their search, shopping and information-retrieval services. Depending on how the bill is written, antitrust violations can carry criminal or civil penalties, including prison terms for criminal violations and heavy fines for civil offenses.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6329736.html?display=Breaking+News
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6329736.html?display=Breaking%20News
May 1, 2006
SENATE PREPS TELECOM REWRITE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
During a two-week Congressional break earlier this moth, Senate Commerce Committee staffers were busy scrambling drafting the panel's version of telecommunication reform legislation. A vote by the Committee on the bill could come in the next two or three weeks. Considered certain to be in the bill is video-franchising reform, the key provision of the narrower version the House Commerce Committee overwhelmingly passed last week. Also expected to be in the Senate bill is network neutrality, or preventing telcos from discriminating against Internet content providers, although the language is not likely to be as strong as some activists would like. Other provisions likely to be included: municipal broadband (which is also in the House version), universal service, and allowing unlicensed wireless devices to use broadcast spectrum.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6329734?display=News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6329734?display=News
May 1, 2006
IT IS TOO SOON TO IMPOSE NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: John Gapper]
[Commentary] Central control of the Internet need not go hand-in-hand with increased download speeds. Regulators can prevent the obvious abuses and the blanket imposition of a net neutrality rule immediately would have unpredictable consequences. The first priority for the US is to push enough investment into fibre-optic lines to create the kind of high-speed Internet that is becoming widespread in countries across Asia and Europe. Despite some of the rhetoric, the Internet already has slower and faster lanes. Companies such as Ebay and Google plug into it through big pipes and store their data on servers around the world so that their pages load more rapidly. Telecoms companies exchange traffic in order to make it travel faster than it would through the public hubs that were the foundation of the Internet. The “best efforts†nature of Internet architecture  all packets of data are delivered as fast as they can be with no discrimination  also works better for some applications than others. It does not matter too much if an e-mail is delayed by a split second or a photograph takes a fraction longer to load. But videos and films fare less well under these egalitarian rules. They may run jerkily or freeze if too much data is delayed. The best approach is to give the telecom companies some leeway on net neutrality now and watch to see the results over the next few years. They have promised not to block any Internet applications and services and to ensure that all traffic is delivered as fast tomorrow as it is today. But this is only a start: to merit their newfound freedom, they must do a great deal better than that.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0c39e582-d866-11da-9715-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)
It is Too Soon to impose Net Neutrality
May 1, 2006
CAPITOL HILL JOINS CRITICISM OF SMITHSONIAN FILM DEAL
[SOURCE: Washington Post 4/29, AUTHOR: Jacqueline Trescott]
Angered that the Smithsonian Institution sold a television network access to its treasures without consulting Congress, two influential members of the House have asked for a public airing of the business deal. Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.), chairman of the House subcommittee that approves the federal appropriation to the Smithsonian, and Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, are also displeased that the institution refuses to make the contract public. In a letter to Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence Small, the congressmen warned that they are monitoring all future agreements, especially ones that "appear to essentially sell access to Smithsonian resources." "The Subcommittee requests the Board of Regents to immediately review this contract to determine whether it violates the spirit if not the letter of the Smithsonian Trust and to consider changes to the contract which would fully guarantee that its terms are limited to a narrow set of programs," the letter said. Reps Taylor and Dicks also said they objected to the restrictions on "legitimate commercial filmmakers who we believe have the right to reasonable access to the collections and staff." In a written response, released Friday night, Small defended the venture and said the regents would review the "issues you have raised regarding reasonable access to collections and staff." He argued that the television deal would bring the Smithsonian to many more people than are able to visit the Mall. "The venture provides an unprecedented opportunity for the Smithsonian to expand exponentially its ability to reach the public with information about our collections and activities, at no cost to us," he wrote. The panel is currently considering a $644.4 million appropriation for fiscal 2007. The Smithsonian receives about 70 percent of its funds from the government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR200604...
(requires registration)
* Criticism Of Showtime/Smithsonian Deal Mounts
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6329777?display=Breaking+News
Capitol Hill Joins Criticism of Smithsonian Film Deal
May 1, 2006
CONGRESS MAY CONSIDER MANDATORY ISP SNOOPING
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
It didn't take long for the idea of forcing Internet providers to retain records of their users' activities to gain traction in the Congress. Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a speech saying that data retention by Internet service providers is an "issue that must be addressed." Child pornography investigations have been "hampered" because data may be routinely deleted, Gonzales warned. Now, in a demonstration of bipartisan unity, a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus is preparing to introduce an amendment -- perhaps during a House of Representatives floor vote this week -- that would make such data deletion illegal. Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette's (D) proposal says that any Internet service that "enables users to access content" must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user's account was closed.
http://news.com.com/Congress+may+consider+mandatory+ISP+snooping/2100-10...
* See the amendment:
http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fenergycommerce.house.gov%2F...
Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping