Benton RSS Feed

CONSUMER GROUPS TIED TO INDUSTRY
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Dionne Searcey dionne.searcey@wsj.com]
A number of lobbying groups that claim to represent consumer interests are backed by phone and cable companies promoting their corporate agendas, according to a report from consumer group Common Cause. The report, expected to be released today, cites groups such as Consumers for Cable Choice, which calls itself an "alliance of consumer advocacy groups, private citizens and others." The group, which pushes for laws that would let phone companies roll out television service easier, has received financial support from Verizon and AT&T, according to both Common Cause and the group itself. "These corporation-backed groups are shamelessly working to convince Congress that there is widespread public and scholarly support for their policy proposals," the Common Cause report says. "Unfortunately almost all of the debate over telecom reform is happening between telephone, cable and Internet industry interests." Lobbying groups whose intentions aren't immediately clear are neither new nor unique to the telecom and cable industries. But such groups, which Common Cause labels "astroturf" because they falsely purport to represent grassroots interests, have proliferated as Congress considers a host of bills that could have sweeping impact on the telecom industry. Common Cause named nine lobbying groups that are focusing on possible legislative changes such as whether to allow communities to deploy their own wireless networks that would directly compete with phone and cable companies as well as whether to block network providers from charging content providers to pay for speedy deliver of their services. One particularly controversial issue is whether to let phone companies roll out TV without asking permission from local governments, as cable companies must do. Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a Washington group that promotes a so-called democratic broadband access, said policymakers often have no idea that the lobbying groups are affiliated with corporations when they receive letters and hear testimony from them. Common Cause is a nonprofit organization with a lobbying arm and an education fund. It doesn't disclose names of donors. Common Cause says it doesn't support any lobbying groups for its causes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114351167476409676.html?mod=todays_us_ma...
(requires subscription)

See "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Telecom Industry Front Groups and Astroturf"
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1499059

GOOGLE JOINS THE LOBBYING HERD
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Kate Phillips]
For a company that takes pride in being the quintessential outsider, Google is moving quickly into the ultimate insider's game: lobbying. Started less than a decade ago in a Stanford dorm room, Google has evolved into a multibillion-dollar business, its search engine ubiquitous on the Internet. Its sprawling growth, fueled by a public stock offering in August 2004 that created a market behemoth, has now thrust it into the glare of Washington. As lawmakers and regulators begin eyeing its ventures in China and other countries and as its Web surfers worry about the privacy of their online searches, Google is making adjustments that do not fit neatly with its maverick image. It has begun ramping up its lobbying and legislative operations after largely ignoring Washington for years, in a scramble to match bases long established here by competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft, as well as the deeply entrenched telecommunication companies. Google has hired politically connected lobbying firms and consultants with ties to Republican leaders like the party chairman, Ken Mehlman; Speaker J. Dennis Hastert; and Senator John McCain; and advisers say the company may set up a fund-raising arm for political donations to candidates. And in a town where Republicans hold the levers of power, Google has begun stockpiling pieces of the party's machine. To some, Google is a novice arriving late to the table. To others, the company's embedding on K Street, which serves as home to many of Washington's top lobbyists, represents a new and not necessarily welcome sign of sophistication.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/politics/28google.html
(requires registration)

HEARST-ARGYLE MAKES TIME FOR POLITICS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Hearst-Argyle owned TV stations that offer local news (there's 26 of them) will offer in the 30 days before both general elections and primaries 10 minutes per day of election news and candidate-centered airtime. And at least five will be original content. Yes, 5 minutes a day of original election coverage for 60 days/year -- this is the kinda stuff we should give medals for -- or, at least, very valuable spectrum licenses. Some in Congress, which will ultimately determine whether broadcasters get multicast digital must-carry, want political airtime to be one of broadcasters' explicit public-interest obligations in the digital age. Broadcasters have balked at mandatory minimums but have increasingly offered airtime.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319103?display=Breaking+News

For more on broadcasters' public interest obligations, see --
* Citizen’s Guide to the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters
http://www.benton.org/pioguide/index.html

STATIONS EYE $2 BILLION IN 2015
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Allison Romano ]
TV-station owners stand to collect nearly $2 billion in 2015 from cable and satellite operators and telcos in exchange for the right to retransmit their broadcast signals. The projection, released last week by Kagan Research, delighted station operators battling a tough advertising market and increased competition for viewers. Some stations want cash for retransmission rights, while others negotiate for advertising or carriage of sister stations. The Kagan predictions are based on an all-cash model, with every broadcaster in a five-station market receiving 40 cents per subscriber. With that standard, Kagan projects that broadcasters could take in about $225 million in fees this year and $1 billion in 2009. That is considered a watershed year because it's when some station owners' cable deals, notably CBS', come due and they will likely seek cash payments. Currently, retransmission payments come mainly from satellite operators, and telco companies will likely pay, too. Most major cable operators have so far resisted paying cash fees, and that's where broadcasters are setting their sights.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6318916?display=News