Benton RSS Feed

Coverage Type 

WHY NOT RESTRUCTURE JOURNALISM AS A LOCAL TRUST?
[SOURCE: David Bollier's blog]
[Commentary] It used to be that journalism was called a public trust. Now it’s mostly considered an under-leveraged market asset. Everywhere you look, the drive to monetize the readership and credibility of journalism is leading to its degradation. It’s demoralizing, it’s bad for our democracy, and it’s destructive of local civic culture. But here’s a fascinating idea: Why not regard journalism as a trust -- literally? That’s what they do at the New London Day (Connecticut), the St. Petersburg Times (Florida), the Manchester Union Leader (New Hampshire) and the Anniston Star (Alabama). Meetup.com, the Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and other Internet venues have shown that, in today’s networked environment, it is actually possible to pursue the collective goals of thousands of ordinary people. Maybe we should be pondering a new future for journalism and local newspapers ­ as citizen-owned trusts. The results could only be beneficial for journalism, for democracy, and for us commoners.
http://onthecommons.org/node/850


Why Not Restructure Journalism as a Local Trust?

Benton's Communications-related Headlines For Wednesday March 29, 2006

There's a hearing today on Digital Content and=20
Enabling Technology. But the big day is tomorrow:=20
the House Commerce Committee considers new=20
telecom law (see story below), the Senate=20
Commerce Committee ponders Competition and=20
Convergence, New America hosts a conversation on=20
the transforming BBC & PBS, and there's a Town=20
Meeting on the Future of Media in Norfolk (VA).=20
For these and other upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org

TELECOM REFORM BILL
House Republicans offer Bill to aid Telcos' Video

NET NEUTRALITY
Battle for the Web
Why Network Operators are Flexing their Muscles
An Examination of the Economics of Whitacre Tiering
Get What You Pay For

MUNICIPAL WIRELESS
New Orleans' free Wi-Fi in dispute
5 Years For Nation Wide WiFi

BROADCASTING
Bill Could Solidify Power of 2 Mexican TV Giants
Showtime, anytime
Critics Say Beer Spots Exploit Loopholes

JOURNALISM
Knight Ridder Papers Draw at Least 3 Bids
Why Not Restructure Journalism as a Local Trust?

POLICYMAKERS -- Road Trip for FCC Dems, Tate=20
Names John Grant Advisor for Policy; Bill Bailey Joins Disney

QUICKLY -- Broadcasters Balk At Possible Retrans=20
Re-Do; Barrington Buys Dozen Raycom Stations;=20
Programmers Seek Captioning Exemptions; CJR on=20
Godcasting Invasion; Anonymous bidding at the=20
FCC; Industry Think Tank Rejects Common Cause=20
Allegations; SAG Members Authorize Strike;=20
European mobile roaming charges to drop

TELECOM REFORM BILL

HOUSE REPUBLICANS OFFER BILL TO AID TELCOS' VIDEO
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jeremy Pelofsky]
House Republicans -- including, in one report,=20
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) -- on Monday=20
offered legislation aimed at easing the path for=20
telephone carriers like AT&T and Verizon to enter=20
the subscription television business. The=20
companies have complained that it would take them=20
years to obtain the necessary licenses from=20
thousands of local authorities to offer video=20
service, which is aimed at competing with cable=20
companies like Comcast. "With new competitors=20
preparing to enter the ongoing race between cable=20
and satellite, the law needs to change," said=20
House Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Barton=20
(R-TX). He introduced the bill with Michigan=20
Republican Rep. Fred Upton and Rep. Bobby Rush,=20
an Illinois Democrat. Although if any telecom=20
reform bill comes out of the House this year, it=20
is likely to be some form of this bill, the=20
future of this legislation remains unclear. The=20
proposed House bill would allow video providers=20
to obtain a national license, known as a=20
franchise, and would permit local authorities to=20
continue collecting up to 5 percent of gross=20
revenue. The proposal also would authorize the=20
Federal Communications Commission to enforce=20
principles it has issued that call on broadband=20
Internet providers to permit consumers unfettered=20
Internet access and allow them to run any Internet-based applications.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DtechnologyNews&sto...
D=3D2006-03-28T192837Z_01_N27323117_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-CONGRESS-VIDEO.xml&a=
rchived=3DFalse
*** There's lots of coverage and reaction to this=20
bill; see http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dnode/1901 for what we've foun=
d. ***

NET NEUTRALITY

BATTLE FOR THE WEB
[SOURCE: Toronto Star, AUTHOR: Tyler Hamilton]
Tim Berners-Lee, chief architect of the World=20
Wide Web, says his world-changing invention would=20
no longer be an "open information space" if=20
broadband providers abandoned the principle of=20
Net neutrality. In an interview with the Toronto=20
Star, Berners-Lee said he's "very concerned"=20
about talk from major North America phone and=20
cable giants about their desire to collect=20
so-called Web tolls from content suppliers and=20
e-commerce companies that want assured access to=20
broadband subscribers. "It stops being the Net if=20
a supplier of downloaded video pays to connect to=20
a particular set of consumers who are connected=20
to a particular cable company. It would no longer=20
be an open information space," Berners-Lee said.=20
"The whole point of the Web is when you arrive=20
it's more or less the same for everybody. That=20
integrity is really essential. ... I'm very=20
concerned." His comments come as a major=20
public-policy debate on net neutrality rages in=20
the United States and, in Canada, is just beginning to heat up.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=3Dthestar/Layout...
ticle_Type1&c=3DArticle&cid=3D1143499812060&call_pageid=3D968350072197&Star=
Source=3DRSS

WHY NETWORK OPERATORS ARE FLEXING THEIR MUSCLES
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Richard Waters and Mark Odell]
[Commentary] Currently, everyone can count on=20
unfettered access to communications networks that=20
reach anyone with an Internet connection -- at=20
the last count, more than 1 billion people. With=20
that sort of reach, any amateur podcaster,=20
video-blogger or software developer can dream of=20
attracting an instant global audience -- even if,=20
in truth, only three other people are paying=20
attention. Some of the companies that control=20
those networks, however, want to change the rules=20
of the game. Starting in the US, but now also=20
spreading to Europe, telecommunications companies=20
have started to argue that they should have the=20
right to charge Internet companies for delivering=20
their videos, e-mails or search results -- or, at=20
least, for guaranteeing them a certain level of=20
service quality. The unspoken threat, critics=20
say, is that non-payers will see the quality of=20
their services degraded, or risk being shut out=20
of the broadband Internet altogether. From being=20
a wide-open medium, the Internet would instead=20
come to look more like the closed networks run by=20
cable or satellite television companies. This=20
amounts to nothing less than a fight over the=20
soul of the Internet. Created as a network to=20
link academics, its basic architecture was=20
founded on openness. Limiting the ability of=20
users to ride the network could amount to the=20
first serious challenge to that principle, a=20
fencing-in of the intellectual commons.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/aa67497c-be8d-11da-b10f-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)
* Move to levy new online charges
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f0f2e74a-be9a-11da-b10f-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ECONOMICS OF 'WHITACRE TIERING'
[SOURCE: Tales of the Sausage Factory, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] Why "Whitacre tiering" produces=20
really, really awful results from an economic=20
perspective. It gives actors all the wrong=20
incentives, adds new layers of uncertainty and=20
inefficiency to the market generally, and=20
discourages investment in bandwidth capacity at=20
every stage of the network (thus aggravating the=20
broadband incentives problem you may have read=20
about recently, rather than solving it, as some=20
defenders of Whitacre tiering maintain).
http://www.wetmachine.com/item/441

GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Richard Notebaert, CEO Qwest]
[Commentary] According to the FCC, Net neutrality=20
means that providers of Internet services must=20
allow unfettered consumer access to the Internet.=20
No one should deny or impede access to lawful=20
sites on the Web. Everyone supports that=20
position. But some very big corporations are=20
trying to redefine Net neutrality away from a=20
focus on access, and toward something far more=20
nebulous and self-serving. Case in point --=20
assume an online movie provider negotiates a=20
commercial agreement with a company like Qwest to=20
guarantee download speeds of, say, five megabits=20
per second, for all its customers. That's a=20
pretty good idea in a world where every company=20
is trying to differentiate itself from its=20
competitors. "Not so fast," cry the naysayers.=20
They claim that the idea of a premium level of=20
service violates Net neutrality because that=20
online movie company's competitors may not want=20
to offer their customers the same benefits.=20
Essentially, they argue that doing this would=20
give some content providers an advantage over=20
those that choose not to provide this service.=20
Well, yes it would. As an industry, we've always=20
sold bigger pipes and faster service to those who=20
wish to buy them. And yes, I suspect much of that=20
enhanced capacity has been bought to give the=20
purchaser an edge. That's how a competitive=20
marketplace works. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and=20
the commission have already made positive moves=20
away from over-regulation of broadband service.=20
They have deliberately moved toward open and=20
fully competitive markets to the benefit of=20
customers and the prosperity of the Internet.=20
It's essential that all decision makers continue=20
to support true Net neutrality, as interpreted by=20
the FCC. This will enable companies to compete,=20
thrive and meet the needs of their customers. And=20
it will put an end to the distortion of this=20
admirable objective into a self-serving concept that was never intended.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114360648777910921.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
nion
(requires subscription)

MUNICIPAL WIRELESS

NEW ORLEANS' FREE WI-FI IN DISPUTE
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Leslie Cauley]
More than half of New Orleans still doesn't have=20
phone or Internet access. But that isn't stopping=20
BellSouth from campaigning to shut down a free=20
Wi-Fi service that has become a lifeline for=20
thousands of residents, the city's top technology=20
officer says. State laws ban municipalities from=20
giving away broadband services. The city got=20
around the ban because the governor declared a=20
state of emergency after Hurricane Katrina. The=20
state of emergency is expected to be lifted this=20
year. When that happens, the broadband network=20
would have to shut down. BellSouth has opposed=20
proposed legislation that would allow New Orleans=20
to keep its Wi-Fi network running. The carrier,=20
which provides phone service in Louisiana, stands=20
to lose phone and wireless customers if other cities follow New Orleans' le=
ad.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20060329/1b_nowifi29.art.htm

5 YEARS FOR NATION WIDE WIFI
[SOURCE: Om Malik's Blog]
[Commentary] In five years, most major metros and=20
suburbs will have ubiquitous Wi-Fi based=20
broadband coverage says Chuck Haas, the=20
co-founder and chief executive officer of=20
MetroFi, a Mountain View, Calif.,-based start-up=20
that is rolling out metro wireless networks. He=20
thinks most metros and suburban areas in the US=20
will be WiFi hot-zones, by end of the decade.
http://gigaom.com/2006/03/27/5-years-for-nation-wide-wifi/

BROADCASTING

BILL COULD SOLIDIFY POWER OF 2 MEXICAN TV GIANTS
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Marla Dickerson]
Mexican lawmakers are poised to overhaul the=20
nation's broadcasting laws this week, a move that=20
opponents say will ensure that two dominant=20
companies retain their lock on the country's=20
airwaves. The legislation would in effect grant=20
new broadcasting spectrum to media giants Grupo=20
Televisa and TV Azteca to launch high-definition=20
television and other digital services without=20
expressly requiring them to pay for it. Experts=20
describe the proposed move as a massive giveaway=20
of public assets that will cost the Mexican=20
treasury billions and block new players from the=20
market. In the midst of a heated presidential=20
race, the bill has provoked accusations of=20
backroom dealing by the two corporations. And it=20
has underscored the enduring power of Mexico's=20
business oligarchies, which critics say are=20
shortchanging Mexican consumers, retarding=20
economic growth and stunting the nation's democracy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fi-mextv29mar29,1,4...
51.story?coll=3Dla-news-a_section
(requires registration)

SHOWTIME, ANYTIME
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Always looking out for its=20
customers, particularly when it could generate=20
new fees, the cable TV industry unveiled two=20
initiatives this week to help viewers catch up=20
with shows they missed. Its efforts highlight the=20
gap between what technology can do and what the=20
TV industry is prepared to try. These proposals=20
are, at best, halfway steps toward the nirvana of=20
complete viewer control. The spread of digital=20
video recorders, high-speed Internet connections=20
and entertainment-oriented computers with massive=20
hard drives has laid the foundation for viewers=20
to watch whatever shows they want to watch,=20
whenever and wherever they wish. Video jukebox=20
services could store umpteen hours of TV and=20
deliver it on demand, either through a coaxial=20
cable or the Internet. Given the industry's=20
complex economics, networks may spend years=20
positioning themselves to compete in the emerging=20
world of on-demand entertainment. Still, the=20
ultimate destination is clear: Viewers will=20
control when and where they watch their favorite=20
shows. The only question is how long it will take to get there.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-vcr29mar29,1,1520...
story?coll=3Dla-news-comment
(requires registration)

CRITICS SAY BEER SPOTS EXPLOIT LOOPHOLES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Melanie Warner]
Gone are the days of bikini-clad women and mud=20
wrestling, but beer advertising still draw lots=20
of criticism. Several consumer groups say that=20
the voluntary standards set up by the Beer=20
Institute, an industry trade group, are little=20
more than a public relations ploy and do not go=20
far enough in trying to cut down on beer ads seen=20
by people under 21. "The beer ad code has=20
loopholes that are big enough to drive a team of=20
Clydesdales through," said Laurie Leiber,=20
director for media advocacy at the Marin=20
Institute, an organization that keeps watch over=20
the alcoholic beverage industry. The Beer=20
Institute's code was made weaker, not stronger,=20
by changes in January, Ms. Leiber said. One=20
loophole, she said, allows for the portrayal of=20
illegal activity in ads as long as it "is a basic=20
element or feature of a parody or spoof and is=20
readily identifiable as such." "They're writing=20
guidelines to allow themselves to do what they've=20
been doing all along," Ms. Leiber said. She said=20
the parody stipulation was added in response to=20
complaints about a Bud Light ad showing referees=20
stealing beer and running from the police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/business/media/29adco.html
(requires registration)

JOURNALISM

KNIGHT RIDDER PAPERS DRAW AT LEAST 3 BIDS
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Joseph Menn and James Rainey]
McClatchy Co.'s planned sale of a dozen Knight=20
Ridder Inc. newspapers drew bids from at least=20
three potential buyers Tuesday =97 including an=20
offer for all 12 from Los Angeles investment firm=20
Yucaipa Cos. Yucaipa, controlled by billionaire=20
Ron Burkle, is allied with the Newspaper=20
Guild-Communications Workers of America, the=20
union that represents employees at eight of the=20
papers. Robert Hall, an advisor to Yucaipa and=20
the union, described the bid as "very competitive=20
and aggressive." Denver-based MediaNews Group=20
Inc., which owns the Denver Post and Daily News=20
in Los Angeles, bid for at least some of the=20
papers, people involved in the process said. In=20
addition, wire services reported that a group led=20
by Bruce Toll, vice chairman of home builder Toll=20
Bros. Inc., bid for the two Philadelphia papers=20
-- the Inquirer and Daily News. Gannett Co.,=20
owner of USA Today and considered a potential=20
bidder, apparently didn't submit an offer. All=20
told, the 12 papers are expected to fetch more than $1 billion.
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-mcclatchy29mar29,1,24...
80.story?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business
(requires registration)

WHY NOT RESTRUCTURE JOURNALISM AS A LOCAL TRUST?
[SOURCE: David Bollier's blog]
[Commentary] It used to be that journalism was=20
called a public trust. Now it=92s mostly considered=20
an under-leveraged market asset. Everywhere you=20
look, the drive to monetize the readership and=20
credibility of journalism is leading to its=20
degradation. It=92s demoralizing, it=92s bad for our=20
democracy, and it=92s destructive of local civic=20
culture. But here=92s a fascinating idea: Why not=20
regard journalism as a trust -- literally? That=92s=20
what they do at the New London Day (Connecticut),=20
the St. Petersburg Times (Florida), the=20
Manchester Union Leader (New Hampshire) and the=20
Anniston Star (Alabama). Meetup.com, the Daily=20
Kos, MoveOn.org and other Internet venues have=20
shown that, in today=92s networked environment, it=20
is actually possible to pursue the collective=20
goals of thousands of ordinary people. Maybe we=20
should be pondering a new future for journalism=20
and local newspapers =AD as citizen-owned trusts.=20
The results could only be beneficial for=20
journalism, for democracy, and for us commoners.
http://onthecommons.org/node/850

POLICYMAKERS

ROAD TRIP FOR FCC DEMS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR:John Eggerton ]
Democratic FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and=20
Jonathan Adelstein will be "listeners" at a town=20
meeting on media issues spearheaded by activist=20
group Free Press. The town meeting, which will be=20
held March 30 in Norfolk, Va., will feature panel=20
discussions and an open-mike session where the=20
public can offer personal testimony, which will=20
be recorded and submitted to the Commission.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319818?display=3DBreaking+News

TATE NAMES JOHN GRANT ADVISOR FOR POLICY
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate announced=20
that John Grant will serve as her Special Advisor=20
for Policy. Grant formerly served as Legislative=20
Assistant to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN). His=20
responsibilities included serving as staff to the=20
Senate Budget Committee and issues including=20
telecommunications, judiciary, international=20
trade, and tax policy. Prior to that, he served=20
as Correspondence Director in Senator Alexander's=20
office. Before joining Senator Alexander's=20
office, Mr. Grant served as Correspondence=20
Director and Legislative Aide to U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL).
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264538A1.doc

BILL BAILEY JOINS DISNEY'S DC CREW
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Former staffer for Sen John McCain (R-AZ) Bill=20
Bailey, who had been senior VP at XM Satellite=20
Radio, has joined Disney, replacing Mitch Rose as=20
the number two guy to chief lobbyist Preston Padden.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319803?display=3DBreaking+News

QUICKLY

BROADCASTERS BALK AT POSSIBLE RETRANS RE-DO
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The National Alliance of State Broadcasters=20
(NASBA), a confederation of state broadcaster=20
associations, have written the House Energy and=20
Commerce Committee asking its members to oppose=20
any attempt to "gut" the current restransmission=20
consent system. NASBA argues that "retransmission=20
consent negotiations are private, market-based=20
negotiations between broadcasters and=20
multichannel video programming distributors.=20
Congress should not alter a system that has=20
evolved to benefit consumers as well as braodcasters and cable companies."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319902?display=3DBreaking+News

BARRINGTON BUYS DOZEN RAYCOM STATIONS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Allison Romano]
Barrington Broadcasting has cut a deal to buy 12=20
TV stations in nine markets from Raycom Media for=20
$262 million. The deal, subject to regulatory=20
approval, comes after Raycom acquired Liberty=20
Corp.=92s station group in February with the=20
promise to sell off stations in 12 markets to=20
comply with FCC restrictions on station=20
ownership. Barrington currently owns six network=20
affiliates. The proposed deal would bring its=20
total coverage to 3.4% of the country.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319585?display=3DBreaking+News

PROGRAMMERS SEEK CAPTIONING EXEMPTIONS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
As of Jan.1, 2006, all new, non-news=20
English-language programming was required to be=20
closed captioned, with some narrow exceptions,=20
including "when compliance with closed captioning=20
rules would pose an undue burden." Providers of=20
TV content, particularly ones without deep=20
pockets, are peppering the FCC's Consumer and=20
Governmental Affairs Bureau weekly with requests=20
for exemptions claiming "an undue burden."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319700?display=3DBreaking+News

CJR ON GODCASTING INVASION
[SOURCE: DIYmedia.net, AUTHOR: ]
[Commentary] The Columbia Journalism Review has=20
just published "Out of Thin Air," which is=20
without a doubt the most comprehensive treatment=20
done by a mainstream media outlet to date on the=20
on the speculation and trafficking of FM=20
translator stations. The 3,600-word piece does an=20
admirable job of unpacking some of the=20
technically-challenging aspects of this=20
complicated story. However, it is not without its=20
share of mistakes, some of which are big enough=20
to somewhat obscure the real nature of the story at hand.
http://diymedia.net/feature/f030506.htm

ANONYMOUS BIDDING AND NOT SO ANONYMOUS SHAKEDOWNS AT THE FCC
[SOURCE: Tales of the Sausage Factory, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] Say what you like about FCC Chairman=20
Martin in other areas, but he is (so far)=20
sticking to his guns on whether to require=20
anonymous bidding for the upcomming AWS spectrum=20
auction. MAP has actively supported this=20
proposal, because it will make the auctions work=20
better and facilitate entry by minority owned=20
businesses and new, disruptive competitors (I'm=20
stuck with them by statute, so I may as well try=20
to get them to work right). In perhaps the most=20
telling evidence that anonymous/blind/sealed=20
bidding (in which the identity of the bidder is=20
not disclosed during the action) is a good idea,=20
every incumbent (except Verizon Wireless, which=20
has been =93targeted=94 in certain auctions) is lobbying fiercely against i=
t.
http://www.wetmachine.com/item/468

INDUSTRY THINK TANK REJECTS COMMON CAUSE ALLEGATIONS
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Doug Halonen]
The Progress & Freedom Foundation, an=20
industry-backed Washington think tank that=20
promotes free-market policies, on Tuesday took=20
issue with allegations by the watchdog group=20
Common Cause that it is an industry front group,=20
saying it is being upfront about its industry=20
funding and mission. In a new report, Common=20
Cause criticizes a variety of groups, including=20
the Progress & Freedom Foundation, for allegedly=20
advancing industry causes without adequately=20
disclosing their industry sponsorship. In the=20
report, titled "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing,"=20
Common Cause notes that the foundation, whose=20
experts sometimes testify before congressional=20
committees, receives funding from a range of=20
telecommunications industry interests, including=20
AT&T and the National Cable & Telecommunications=20
Association. The report also says foundation=20
experts have recently supported the cable TV=20
industry's opposition to a la carte cable pricing=20
and network neutrality rules barring broadband=20
service providers from using their power over=20
their networks to discriminate against unaffiliated content providers.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=3D9644
(requires free registration)
* Common Cause Takes On =91Turf=92
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6319872.html?display=3DBreaking+News

SAG MEMBERS AUTHORIZE STRIKE AGAINST CABLE PRODUCERS
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: James Hibberd]
Screen Actors Guild members have voted to give=20
union leaders authorization to call a strike=20
during negotiations with basic cable producers.=20
During the last week, SAG held negotiation=20
caucuses with members in five cities-San=20
Francisco, Miami, Chicago, New York and=20
Hollywood-where votes were taken to grant authorization for a strike.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=3D9642
(requires free registration)
See SAG statement:
http://www.sag.org/sagWebApp/application;JSESSIONID_sagWebApp=3DEpURGgrH...
XoGSJnr9S15MNrs58OlM6Y1nid25N4oNsq7MmKGIn!105745792!NONE?origin=3Dpage1.jsp=
&event=3Dbea.portal.framework.internal.refresh&pageid=3DHidden&contentUrl=
=3D/NewsAndAnnouncements/announcementLander.jsp&cp=3Dnull&announcementPage=
=3D/Content/Public/caucus2.htm

EUROPEAN MOBILE ROAMING CHARGES TO DROP
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Sarah Laitner and Mark Odell ]
Europeans could see a sharp drop in international=20
phone costs in time for their summer holidays=20
next year as a result of planned laws being=20
rushed through by the European Commission.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/22ebbde8-be7e-11da-b10f-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online=20
news summary service provided by the Benton=20
Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday=20
through Friday, this service provides updates on=20
important industry developments, policy issues,=20
and other related news events. While the=20
summaries are factually accurate, their often=20
informal tone does not always represent the tone=20
of the original articles. Headlines are compiled=20
by Kevin Taglang headlines( at )benton.org -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Hearing on
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
March 29, 2006
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
1:00 PM

Witness List & Prepared Testimony

Panel 1

Mr. Blake Krikorian
Chief Executive Officer
Sling Media
901 Mariners Island Boulevard
Suite 300
San Mateo, CA, 94404 Mr. John Feehery
Executive Vice President, External Affairs
Motion Picture Association of America
1600 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20006

Mr. Jim Denney
Vice President for Product Marketing
TiVo, Inc.
2160 Gold Street
PO Box 2160
Alviso, CA, 95002 Mr. Stevan Mitchell
Vice President of IP Policy
Entertainment Software Association
575 7th Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC, 20004

See http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/03292006hearing1829/hearing... for webcast.

Coverage Type 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS OFFER BILL TO AID TELCOS' VIDEO
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jeremy Pelofsky]
House Republicans -- including, in one report, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) -- on Monday offered legislation aimed at easing the path for telephone carriers like AT&T and Verizon to enter the subscription television business. The companies have complained that it would take them years to obtain the necessary licenses from thousands of local authorities to offer video service, which is aimed at competing with cable companies like Comcast. "With new competitors preparing to enter the ongoing race between cable and satellite, the law needs to change," said House Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). He introduced the bill with Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton and Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat. Although if any telecom reform bill comes out of the House this year, it is likely to be some form of this bill, the future of this legislation remains unclear. The proposed House bill would allow video providers to obtain a national license, known as a franchise, and would permit local authorities to continue collecting up to 5 percent of gross revenue. The proposal also would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to enforce principles it has issued that call on broadband Internet providers to permit consumers unfettered Internet access and allow them to run any Internet-based applications.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&story...

* Hastert-Barton Draft Proposes National Video Franchises
[SOURCE: Congress Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-XUEK1143555795711.html

BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION BRINGS CHOICE, PRICE COMPETITION TO PAY TV
[SOURCE: House Commerce Committee press release, AUTHOR: Chairman Joe Barton]
Consumers will have greater choice and lower prices for pay television under bipartisan legislation unveiled today by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, and U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 would prevent regulations from stunting the growth of new pay-TV services. Specifically, the bill would: 1) Create a nationwide approval process for pay-TV services. By streamlining this system, these companies will be able to offer new TV services in many areas while protecting local interests. Cable providers will also be eligible to participate in this streamlined system once they face local competition. 2) Require Internet-based telephone services to offer 9-1-1 capabilities while ensuring Internet telephone providers have access to all necessary 9-1-1 infrastructure and technology. 3) Clarify the FCC authority to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or degrading any content or applications delivered over the public Internet. 4) Preserve the rights of municipalities to collect up to a five percent fee from pay-TV providers. 5) Allow cities and towns to develop their own broadband networks.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/03272006_1827.htm

MARKEY SLAMS "BIPARTISAN" BILL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Rep Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking Democrat on the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, does not see the just-released national franchise bill as any kind of bipartisan offering, as it was being touted by the majority Tuesday (Democrat Bobby Rush of Illinois co-sponsored the bill). Rep Markey said he was disappointed both in the resulting bill and the Republican leadership of the House Commerce Committee and Telecom Subcommittee. He said the bill would allow franchisees to cherry pick more affluent neighborhoods and could lead to higher cable rates, not lower. Rep Markey said, “This bill ought to embrace open networks, competition in all markets, and a broadband vision which benefits everyone in the country. Instead, it does the opposite. In short, it favors the communications Colossi at the expense of the public interest. For those fighting for a broadband vision for America which is inclusive, innovative, and openly competitive, this bill represents a giant step backwards.”
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319865?display=Breaking+News
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6319748.html?display=Breaking+News
* Rep. Markey Wages War Against Draft Telecom Bill
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-YGPR1143665536080.html

NET-NEUTRALITY ALLIES WANT BARTON BILL CHANGED
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Software companies and Internet-service providers with a combined market value greater than $500 billion complained Tuesday that a new House telecommunications bill would allow cable and phone broadband-access providers to harm Web-based competitors and rob the Internet of its open, competitive nature. The legislation, offered Monday by House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), includes provisions that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to police the Internet and curb discriminatory actions taken by access providers. But in a letter to Rep Barton, some of the Internet’s biggest players argued that the bill lacked teeth. “We are extremely concerned that legislation before your committee would fail to protect the Internet from discrimination and would deny consumers unfettered access to the tremendous scope of content, applications and services that are available today on the Internet and will be developed in the future,” the letter said. The one-page letter was signed by Amazon.com, eBay, Google, InterActiveCorp, Microsoft and Yahoo!.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6319862.html?display=Breaking+News
* Critics: Telecom Bill Guts Net Neutrality
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3594861
* Internet Firms Want FCC to Enforce Net Neutrality
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Arshad Mohammed]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR200603...
(requires registration)
* Internet Firms Steamed Over Draft Bill's 'Net Neutrality' Language
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-FGVD1143665902861.html

FRANCHISE BILL FALLS SHORT, SAYS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Public Knowledge, which advocates for an open Internet and fair-use rights for digital content, says the just-released House Commerce Committee bill that would establish an automatically renewing 10-year national video franchise falls short of protecting the Internet. Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said the group was happy that there was language recognizing the importance of an open Internet. "However," she said, "we do not believe that the draft bill goes far enough. The provisions will not stop the cable and telephone companies from degrading Internet traffic, and they do not contain strong enough penalties to discourage misbehavior. Without stronger legislation, the cable and telephone companies will have the power to change the fundamental nature of the Internet."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319657?display=Breaking+News

STATEMENT OF KYLE MCSLARROW, NCTA PRESIDENT & CEO
[SOURCE: National Cable & Telecommunications Association press release]
"Earlier drafts of the House bill focused on picking winners and losers on the basis of technology, and we are pleased that focus has now changed. While our policy recommendation would be to reform and streamline the franchising process to ensure speedy entry by new competitors, we are pleased that the national franchising scheme proposed in the House bill seeks to ensure all providers compete on a level playing field. Under any scheme, what matters is the sets of responsibilities assigned to local, state, and federal authorities and we look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to develop an appropriately balanced set of responsibilities for all levels of government. We are also pleased that the House bill reflects an understanding that the competitive marketplace is more than just video, but includes voice competition as well. In fact, the only telecommunications monopoly today is the voice market, where the telephone companies have an 85 percent market share, and we will work to build on the good start in the House bill to ensure that the voice market is fully competitive. Finally, while recognizing that the House bill has a net neutrality provision narrowly tailored to the FCC policy statement issued in 2005, we continue to believe that the better course is for the government to resist injecting itself into a thriving, dynamic market where investment and innovation are flourishing."
http://www.ncta.com/press/press.cfm?PRid=684&showArticles=ok

US TELECOM STATEMENT
[SOURCE: USTelecom press release]
"This draft legislation will eliminate outdated barriers to entry in the video market and will help spur real competition. We applaud Chairmen Barton and Upton for their efforts to bring meaningful video choice to consumers and we will continue to work with both the House and Senate to update our telecom laws, including stabilizing universal service."
http://www.ustelecom.org/news_releases.php?urh=home.news.nr2006_0327

CEA COMMENDS DRAFT HOUSE TELECOM LEGISLATION
[SOURCE: Consumer Electronics Association press release]
"CEA commends Chairman Barton for introducing draft legislation to provide consumers with more choice in video services. Under this bill, the necessary steps have been taken to remove barriers for new entrants in to the video marketplace. Society will benefit from more competition and real choices in broadband. We are pleased that the bill recognizes the importance of ensuring key broadband policy principles. Specifically we are committed to working with Congress, service providers and other affected parties to ensure that a regulatory regime is established allowing for the advancement of new IP-enabled services, while including a commitment to open and unfettered consumer access to content, services and applications and protecting a consumer's ability to connect devices of their choice. More importantly, we need to work to promote and protect the commercial availability of devices that attach to broadband video services. Preserving the retail marketplace for 'edge network' technologies and devices is vital to the success of innovation in this evolving broadband era."
http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/press_release_detail.asp?id=10982



Coverage Type 

One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is "Astroturf lobbying" -- creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to describe corporations' big-money efforts to put fake grassroots pressure on Congress. Astroturf campaigns generally claim to represent huge numbers of citizens, but in reality their public support is minimal or nonexistent.

Another industry approach is to fund "think tanks" and nonprofit groups with innocuous sounding names to write reports and policy papers. These groups accept subsidies or grants from corporate interests to lobby or produce research when they normally might not, but too often fail to disclose the connection between their policy positions and their bank accounts. (This is not true of all industry-friendly think tanks; some, like the Progress and Freedom Foundation, disclose supporters on their websites.)

These sorts of campaigns are dangerous for our democracy. They deliberately mislead citizens, and they deliberately mislead our lawmakers, who are already charged with the difficult task of making sense of complex telecommunications policies. Corporations that already have significant economic clout and influence are trying to co-opt the voices of everyday citizens and think tanks, and use them to their own advantage. In the end, that practice dilutes the power of true grassroots and nonprofit advocacy.

This report attempts to shine a light on some of the telecom industry's devious Astroturf campaigns, as well as their funding of think tanks for "research" that supports the industry's agenda. Because there is so little disclosure in this area, it is difficult to get all the information necessary to issue a comprehensive report. But we have uncovered nine groups that represent a range of Astroturf and front group strategies employed by the telecom giants.

These corporate-backed groups are shamelessly working to convince Congress that there is widespread public and scholarly support for their policy proposals. Unfortunately, almost all of the debate over telecom reform is happening between telephone, cable and Internet industry interests. But it's not just dollars and cents that are at stake: It's also the ability of citizens to speak, to be heard, to have access to the information they need to govern themselves.

That's why it is so critical that citizens - the real grassroots, not industry Astroturf - have their voices heard on telecom issues. When Congress wrote the 1996 Telecommunications Act, only corporate stakeholders had a seat at the table. The result was a law that gave us less competition, higher prices and more concentrated media. This time around we must make sure that our lawmakers understand that the public interest is more important than telecom companies' bottom lines.


http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1499059
Coverage Type 

SEN ROCKEFELLER PUTS HOLD ON FCC NOMINEE: SOURCES
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jeremy Pelofsky]
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) has placed a hold on the nomination of telecommunications lawyer Robert McDowell to fill the third Republican seat on the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. McDowell would break a 2-2 deadlock at the agency. With a majority, the FCC has been expected to launch a review that could lead to relaxing media ownership restrictions. His nomination would require confirmation by the full Senate but any senator can put a so-called hold on a nomination for any reason. Traditionally, Senate leaders try to resolve the differences that prompted the action. A spokesman for Sen Rockefeller declined to confirm or deny the hold, but said the lawmaker did have concerns about properly accounting for the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes communications services for low-income and rural areas and is overseen by the FCC. The Universal Service Administrative Co., which runs the USF E-Rate program, had to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies when it was discovered that the program did not comply with certain government accounting rules. Congress has eased those rules on the program while it reviewed possible changes and the subsidies resumed. "Senator Rockefeller is looking for the administration to give written confirmation that the Universal Service Fund accounting problem is fixed," said Rockefeller spokesman Stuart Chapman.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID...



Coverage Type 

HOUSE WOULD GRANT 10-YR NATIONAL FRANCHISE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The House Commerce Committee has released a bill to be considered at a hearing on Thursday. The bill would allow new video providers to get a 10-year franchise within 30 days of filing the requisite application, so long as they file the correct paperwork. It also allows cable to get a franchise under the same national franchise terms if a competitor enters the market with a national franchise or when their current franchise expires. The national franchise can be revoked for "repeated and willfull violations," including discrimination in terms of service (so-called "red lining"), violating rights-of-way laws, or making false statements about service.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319469?display=Breaking+News

* Net neutrality fans lose on Capitol Hill
http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+fans+lose+on+Capitol+Hill/2100-1036_3...

* Barton Gives Bells 10 Years
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6319478.html?display=Breaking+News

* McSlarrow to Testify on Video Bill
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6319352.html?display=Breaking+News

* Track the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006" at:
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1882


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319469?display=Breaking%20News
Coverage Type 

BELLS, CABLE LIKELY TO FACE OFF ON SECOND FRONT: 1992 CABLE ACT
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
Bell telecommunications companies fighting with cable operators over whether they should be allowed to circumvent municipal video franchises are likely to soon begin clashing on a new legislative front: revisions to a 1992 law governing access to television programming. The 1992 Cable Act created a "program access" requirement that generally requires cable operators to share channels distributed over satellites with direct broadcast satellite systems and other cable competitors. The law helped jumpstart the satellite television industry with programming such as CNN and HBO. The programming issue comes to a head as other business, regulatory and TV-viewing issues converge on Washington. Those factors include the start of the baseball season, commercial disputes between Verizon Communications and a cable operator, and the proposed acquisition of Adelphia Communications by Comcast and Time Warner. Although the programming fight would pit the Bells against cable operators, they could have allies: satellite operators, independent television networks, and cable "over-builders," such as RCN Networks.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-GVYW1143493841651.html


Bells, Cable Likely To Face Off On Second Front: 1992 Cable Act
Coverage Type 

REPORT: BROADBAND WON'T BACKFILL VOICE LOSES
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Karen Brown]
A new report issued by In-Stat (a sister company to Multichannel News) indicated that the growth in broadband-wireline revenues will not be enough to replace losses in traditional consumer voice services. While broadband growth remains healthy, the total revenue picture for wireline-telecommunications services in the United States will dwindle by 3.3% on average every year through 2009, according to the report. The study also found that while telcos’ digital-subscriber-line and cable-modem services are growing, bundling strategies are eroding their revenue margins. And it found that business voice services are seeing similar revenue declines, but at a slower rate than consumer services.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6319416.html?display=Breaking+News


http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6319416.html?display=Breaking%20News
Coverage Type 

MEMO TO AT&T: THE DEBATE OVER THE INTERNET'S FUTURE IS NOT JUST "ABOUT MOVIES"
[SOURCE: Digital Destiny, AUTHOR: Jeff Chester]
[Commentary] In a revealing comment last week, AT&T lobbyist honcho Jim Cicconi told journalists that the battle over network neutrality was “all about movies.” That AT&T would see it that way is understandable, since their “vision” for the future of the Internet is basically a souped-up version of pay television (with endless embedded “rich media” interactive ads). The Bells and the cable industry want to control the pipeline into our computerized devices so they can reap the profits from such downloads. They believe that the proponents of network neutrality only want to also provide the public with video programming, including films. Reflecting their narrow view of our broadband futures, it was reported that AT&T and Verizon would be happy to offer others access if they receive enough bags of dough. But, of course, the real issue is whether the U.S. will have a democratic digital media system. We need an open pipeline not for Hollywood films, but for the never-ending bandwidth intensive content that will be an important part of our lives. From advocacy videos to streaming media about art; from broadband community health wiki’s to new public affairs channels owned by persons of color—our broadband future will be diverse. But we must ensure that everyone has fair entry into the PC, the IPTV, and even mobile devices. We need a robust public lane for all, with guarantees that everyone can have ready access to content. The debate over network neutrality isn't about whether the Cable and Bell giants will block website access. It’s really over whether Americans will be treated fairly—so they can enjoy the bounty of content that can help enrich their families, communities and our democracy.
http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=11


http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=11