Benton RSS Feed
House Energy and Commerce ranking member John Dingell, D-Mich., and Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee ranking member Edward Markey, D-Mass., offered the buildout amendment, which was defeated 22-11. Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, opposed the amendment, which he said "really goes to the heart of the bill." In fact, differences over the buildout issue were key to the breakdown of negotiations between Barton and Dingell last month as they sought to reach a bipartisan accord on telecom legislation. "The whole purpose of a national franchise is to give many of our companies that have invested billions and billions the opportunity to provide additional service," said Barton. "If you believe in the underlying purpose of the legislation, vote against this [amendment]. If you think markets don't work, and we need regulation, we need mandates, vote for this." Barton nevertheless praised Dingell's amendment as a "well thought-out" approach to requiring buildout.
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/2009
HOUSE PANEL APPROVES TELECOM BILL; REJECTS DEMOCRATIC 'BUILDOUT' PLAN
[SOURCE: Congress Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
As a House of Representatives subcommittee moved toward passage of a telecommunications overhaul bill prior to the forthcoming Easter congressional recess, it rejected a Democratic-sponsored amendment that would have required the regional Bell operating companies to “build out†services to all customers within given geographic areas. The move came as the House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee approved legislation to grant national franchises to the Bells and other new entrants into the pay video market. On another key issue, the subcommittee also voted down a Democratic amendment designed to strengthen provisions in the bill related to "network neutrality" -- which involves a requirement that the Bells and cable operators not discriminate against outside Internet content providers in sending data over high speed networks. House Commerce ranking member John Dingell (D-MI) and Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee ranking member Edward Markey (D-MA) offered the buildout amendment, which was defeated 22-11. Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) opposed the amendment, which he said "really goes to the heart of the bill." In fact, differences over the buildout issue were key to the breakdown of negotiations between Chairman Barton and Rep Dingell last month as they sought to reach a bipartisan accord on telecom legislation.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-BKZH1144269035135.html
* US House panel backs help for telcos on TV service
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&story...
* House Panel Backs Phone Firms On Plans for Rollout of TV Service
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114428716024518433.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)
* National Franchise Bill Passes Subcommittee
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6322530?display=Breaking+News
* House Subcommittee Clears Franchise Bill
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6322537.html?display=Breaking+News
* Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal
http://news.com.com/Republicans+defeat+Net+neutrality+proposal/2100-1028...
* Network Neutrality Amendment Defeated
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6322494?display=Breaking+News
* Subcommittee Votes Down Build-Out Guarantee
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6322390?display=Breaking+News
* "Misguided" Internet Bill Aids "Broadband Barons"
http://www.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2006/04/misguided_inter.html
* Local Officials Have Concerns With Telecom Bill
http://www.nlc.org/Newsroom/Nation_s_Cities_Weekly/Weekly_NCW/2006/04/03...
House Panel Approves Telecom Bill; Rejects Democratic 'Buildout' Plan
'BUILD OUT' RULE DIVIDES LAWMAKERS
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
One of touchiest disputes over a draft bill to create national video franchises is whether it would have a positive or negative impact on racial minorities and low-income groups. Bell telephone companies support House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton's national video franchise without a "build out" rule, while the cable industry generally opposes it. Cable operators have been regulated by municipalities, which generally require commitments to build out video service to entire regions before franchise agreements are granted for those regions. But Republicans, and the Bells, have attempted to inoculate themselves against charges of discrimination by race or income. Build-out rules would kill the competition that national franchises would bring, they argue. They have the support of at least two black Democrats, Bobby Rush of Illinois and Albert Wynn of Maryland. And the draft telecom bill by Rep Barton includes several anti-discrimination provisions. Besides banning discrimination by race and income within an area, the measure calls for the FCC to yank national franchises from any company for "willful and repeated violation of the anti-discrimination requirement."
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-VIIU1144268641659.html
'Build Out' Rule Divides Lawmakers
SENS SEEK ADELPHIA CONDITIONS
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Apparently, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) have asked the Federal Communications Commission to consider imposing programming conditions on the sale of Adelphia Communications to Time Warner and Comcast. In an April 4 letter to the FCC, the Senators took the side of DirecTV and EchoStar that Comcast and Time Warner would have the market power to control access to and the price of widely popular regional sports networks, perhaps giving the MSOs too much leverage over pay TV competitors. In their letter, Stevens and Dorgan voiced concern that Comcast and Time Warner might migrate programming services to terrestrial-distribution formats in order to withhold the programming from competitors in a manner consistent with federal program-access rules. Those rules require MSOs to sell just satellite-delivered programming that they own. The lawmakers also said they were concerned that Comcast and Time Warner would control large regional clusters with a high percentage of pay TV subscribers, and that they would use that clout to obtain unaffiliated programming on an exclusive basis. Sens Stevens and Dorgan also suggested that Comcast and Time Warner might make programming available to satellite on discriminatory terms by offering a license-fee structure designed to ensure that satellite providers pay more than cable for the same programming.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6322524.html?display=Breaking+News
* Stevens Pushes for Sports Access
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6322856?display=Breaking+News
* Stevens Fears Cable Sports Monopoly
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6322911.html?display=Breaking+News
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6322524.html?display=Breaking%20News
SAN FRANCISCO PICKS GOOGLE, EARTHLINK
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Verne Kopytoff]
San Francisco on Wednesday chose the high-tech team of Google and EarthLink to bring free, wireless Internet access to virtually everyone in the city, possibly by the end of the year. The two companies, which were recommended by a city panel evaluating the project, beat out five other bidders for a chance at the highly coveted contract. After a contract is negotiated by the city, reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and the network built, residents will be able to log on wirelessly whether at home, in a park or at work. Both companies would share the cost of installing the necessary equipment, estimated at up to $12 million. San Francisco will pay nothing and actually reap some fees by leasing city property as perches for Wi-Fi antennas. The project, championed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, is intended to boost the city's technology credentials and help bridge the digital divide between the Internet haves and have-nots. It has also generated intense interest from other cities looking to build similar networks.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/06/GOOGLE.TMP&t...
* Google to build wireless network in San Francisco
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1f2538da-c52f-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)
* San Francisco picks companies for Wi-Fi
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/14272485.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/06/GOOGLE.TMP&type=tech
REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COPPS FREEDOM TO CONNECT 2006
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
We view the Internet as a place of freedom and openness. We view it as a place where innovation can flourish, where it seems almost anyone with a good idea, some technological savvy and a healthy dose of persistence can develop a business with global reach. With the genius of a dumb pipe connecting to intelligence at the edges and the common language of IP communications, the possibilities are endless. And this is indeed the way things ought to work. But if we are not watchful, we will miss the signs that there are threats to the openness that makes the Internet so great. Some telltale clues are out there. News reports-from Business Week to The Wall Street Journal to The Financial Times to The New York Times-have sounded warning bells, suggesting a future where new broadband toll bridges may restrict the use of services like VoIP, or make it difficult to watch videos or listen to music over the web. It's not impossible to imagine these things taking place. Because the more concentrated our facilities providers grow, the more they have the ability, and possibly even the incentive, to act as Internet gatekeepers-unduly influencing the flow or speed of Internet traffic, ultimately perhaps even dictating who can use the Internet and for what purposes. We can't let this happen. If we do, there's no doubt in my mind we will look back, shake our heads and wonder whatever happened to that open, dynamic and liberating Internet that we once knew. "What promise it held," we'll say. And if that occurs, history won't forgive us. Nor should it. So let's roll up our sleeves and work together-all of us-to make sure that the Internet continues to foster freedom and innovation, and that the original vision that inspired this liberating technology lives for another day and another generation. This is not just about better communications or a better Internet, it's about a better America.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264765A1.doc
* See coverage of another recent Copps' speech:
* Broadband access needs a champion, FCC commissioner says
http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2835
* Wireless Web could aid disaster response
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=413300
FCC Commissioner Copps at Freedom to Connect 2006
REED HUNDT STEALS THE SHOW
[SOURCE: Paul Kapustka's Blog 4/4]
[Commentary] It's one thing to talk about network neutrality, but yet another to formulate a plan of action, with real numbers, costs and ways to compromise to get things done in the real world. With a speech at the F2C: Freedom to Connect event that embraced all of the latter, former FCC chairman Reed Hundt on Tuesday eclipsed most of the "net neutrality is good" offerings in recent memory, and moved the ball forward by putting a price tag -- $25 billion -- on the cost of bringing fiber to all U.S. homes. Hundt thinks that it's time for the government to step in and "create a public thoroughfare to the Internet -- and it ought to be fast, and every year faster. It should constantly improve, like roads." Unlike others who just call for such things, Hundt has the cost parsed out: Estimating a cost of $1,000 per household (the actual cost of laying fiber, minus the amount people have demonstrably been willing to pay for such services) to build a nationwide fiber network would cost between $20 and $25 billion, Hundt said -- "less than one-tenth of the money budgeted for a missile defense system that doesn't work." Far from excluding the telcos, Hundt said to let everyone and anyone bid on the contracts -- lowest bidder wins, and whoever builds the fiber can keep "half of it for their VPN," and let the other half be the public conduit. While acknowledging that calling for huge domestic expenditures might seem "crazy" in Washington today, Hundt noted that building national broadband systems "only happens to be the dominant paradigm in every developing country in the world."
http://paulsblog.pulver.com/archives/2006/04/f2c_reed_hundt.html
Reed Hundt steals the show
REPORT VAULTS VIDEO REPORTS SHOWN AS NEWS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: David Barstow]
Many television news stations, including some from the nation's largest markets, are continuing to broadcast reports as news without disclosing that the segments were produced by corporations pitching new products, according to a report to be released today by the Center for Media and Democracy. Television news directors have said that the segments, known as video news releases, are almost never broadcast, but CMD assembled television videotape from 69 stations that it said had broadcast fake news segments in the past 10 months. The report said none of the stations had disclosed that the segments were produced by publicists representing companies like General Motors, Capital One and Pfizer. The center also said that many of the 69 stations took steps to blend the fake segments into their news broadcasts. Some had their news reporters or anchors read scripts supplied by corporations, the report said, and many had altered screen graphics to include the station's logo. The report said that a few stations had introduced publicists as if they were their on-air reporters. Only a handful of stations added any independently gathered information or videotape, it said. The 69 stations reach about half the population of the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/business/media/06video.html
(requires registration)
* See the report, Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
** Also see campaign to stop fake news: http://www.freepress.net/fakenews/
Report Faults Video Reports Shown as News
NETWORK CENSORSHIP CAN'T SILENCE CHURCH'S CAMPAIGN
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Ron Buford, United Church of Christ]
[Commentary] Network censorship is alive and well. The United Church of Christ, the same organization that won a landmark case against a Jackson (Miss) TV station that edited out civil rights activities as too controversial to air, is now itself a victim of censorship. This month, a new television ad for UCC's "God Is Still Speaking" campaign is airing across the country. The ad, called "Ejector Seats," shows a variety of people being literally ejected from a church because they're "different": homeless, gay, Middle Eastern or just ordinary people with noisy kids. The campaign's message is simple. No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome in the UCC. Like modern Bible parables, these commercials are short, catchy, simple and memorable. And like the Bible parables, they challenge the status quo. Perhaps that's why they've been branded as "too controversial" by the major television networks. The message about rejection was itself rejected, and ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX all refused to air the ad. Network executives believe they're being fair because they air programs with gay characters. From "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy'" to "Will & Grace," the networks portray gay people in one dimension, like minstrels who exist simply to entertain viewers. But showing lesbians and gay men seeking relationships with God is deemed "too controversial" for the public airwaves. We're simply asking to pay for airtime, like any other advertiser reaching people in the marketplace. Just as Jackson's WLBT refused to sell advertising time to an African-American minister who was running for Congress in 1962, the networks will not do business with a church that proclaims everyone is welcome in 2006.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14276603.htm
Network Censorship can't Silence Church's Campaign
STAGE SET FOR COMPETITION FOR LONG ISLAND CABLE TV
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Bruce Lambert]
Across the nation, telephone and cable television companies are starting to invade each other's traditional turf. Their latest battleground, and one of the biggest anywhere, is now on Long Island, New York. Hempstead Town officials have granted Verizon Communications a franchise to provide cable television through its fiber-optic telephone lines, setting the stage for head-to-head competition with the longtime local monopoly, Cablevision. Both companies also provide telephone and Internet connections and offer packages that include television. Cablevision's introductory rate is about $90 a month for all three services. Hempstead's 750,000 residents — more than Boston, Washington or Miami — make it by far the biggest jurisdiction in the New York region to promote such competition. The deal needs the approval of the state's Public Service Commission, but it has already allowed such competition in Massapequa Park and Nyack. Other battlefronts are also opening up, a result of technological advances and deregulation that is forcing the telecommunications industry to reinvent itself. "What's happening there in New York is an early curve of what's going to be happening around the country in the next few years," said Jeff Kagan, a telecommunications analyst. "This is a new wave of competition. Basically the telephone and cable television companies are both rushing to offer the same bundle of services: television, phone, Internet and wireless. The sooner they do, the sooner prices will come down for all the customers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/06cable.html
(requires registration)
Stage Set for Competition for Long Island Cable TV