Benton's Communications-related Headlines for 9/30/04
Check local listings for coverage of the first debate between President
Bush and Senator Kerry.
For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm
THE NAB WINS AGAIN!
Senate Puts Limits on FCC's Waiver Ability
Lobbying Juggernaut
Most Broadcasters Carry Digital Signals At Low Power
MEDIA & ELECTIONS
Fox Shuns Debate Restrictions
Big Brother Barton
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PRIVACY
Senate Bill Aims at Makers of File-Sharing Software
Carriers Promise Congress Wireless 411 Will Protect Privacy
California Governor Vetoes Privacy Bills
QUICKLY
A Caution on Kids, Technology
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC)
Making the Grade?: A Report Card on US Policies for
the Information Society (CPSR)
THE NAB WINS AGAIN!
SENATE PUTS LIMITS ON FCC'S WAIVER ABILITY
Sens. Conrad Burns (R-MT) John McCain (R-AZ) reached an agreement on an
amendment to National Intelligence Reform Act, being debated on the Senate
floor this week, that they promise will make some public spectrum currently
used for television broadcasting available for public safety officials by
January 1, 2008. The compromise would limit the ability of the FCC to waive
requirements that 75 TV stations operating on channels 63 through 69 to
vacate their frequencies.
CommunicationsDaily reports that broadcasters would only have to vacate if
there was a bona fide request from public safety officials. The compromise
also means it is much less likely that there will be a hard date set by
Congress to end the transition to digital TV broadcasting.
Broadcasting&Cable reports that the compromise also means the elimination
of an amendment -- from Sen Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) -- that would have
established guidelines for DTV public interest obligations. There is also a
billion dollars earmarked from spectrum auctions to help buy DTV converters
for viewers who can't afford them, but Sen McCain suggested the absence of
a hard date for that reclamation meant there would be no money either for
the boxes or to help fund emergency communications. Sen McCain also
suggested the National Association of Broadcaster's support for the
compromise was tantamount to selling out the channel 62-69 stations, many
Hispanic and religious, and though he endorsed the compromise, asked the
FCC and the House Commerce Committee to investigate the "discriminatory
treatment" of those stations.
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Doug Halonen]
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=6416
Senate Approves Deadline for Public Safety Spectrum Return
[SOURCE: Communications Daily, AUTHOR: Terry Lane]
(Not available online)
Spectrum-Reclamation Amendment Passes
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA457257.html?display=Breaking+...
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
LOBBYING JUGGERNAUT
Just how much sway do broadcasters have over lawmakers? Plenty according to
the anecdotal evidence presented by Layton. The National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB) is considered the most powerful of all media lobbying
groups. Meredith McGehee, who heads the Alliance for Better Campaigns, says
when she brings up an issue with congressional staffers, "They'll say, 'How
does the NAB stand on this?' And if the NAB is against it, they'll say,
'You haven't got a chance.'" The organization is huge: total net assets of
$66.7 million in 2003; it collects over $50 million/year in membership
dues, conventions, seminars, sales of merchandise and other activities; its
annual payroll exceeds $12.5 million; it spent $3.7 million on lobbying in
2003 and gave more than $2.2 million over the past four years to candidates
for federal office, nearly two-thirds of that to Republicans. As an
interest group, the media include not just the NAB but also powerful
companies like General Electric (which owns NBC), Viacom, Disney (which
owns ABC) and News Corp. (which owns Fox). Their interests are so diverse
as to touch on nearly every big issue newspeople cover--tax policy, health
care, environmental regulation, insurance regulation, financial services
regulation, labor law, equal employment opportunity rules, defense
spending, global trade policy and even sports. It's understandable that
politicians would fear such concentrated power. But they might fear it just
a little less if the very people who deliver the news for these companies
were not so often involved in their lobbying and public relations.
There's much more at the URL below.
[SOURCE: American Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Charles Layton]
http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3748
MOST BROADCASTERS CARRY DIGITAL SIGNALS AT LOW POWER
As of August, there were 1,445 digital television stations in the US: 651
operating at full power and the rest -- 794 -- operating at lower than
assigned power, says Rick Chessen, head of the FCC DTV Task Force. This
worries digital TV set makers who think the decreased power means a smaller
service area which means less people buying digital sets to receive digital
signals. [And for those watching the transition to digital-only
broadcasters, that means a longer time until markets reach the 85% digital
TV threshold which would trigger the end of analog signals in that area. In
turn that means a longer period when broadcasters control analog and
digital TV spectrum that could be used for other uses.] The FCC requires
the top 400 TV stations to be at full power digital by July 2005 -- and all
other stations one year later. But communications equipment manufacturers
are worried that broadcasters are waiting for the deadline and that
installers will not be able to handle the crush of orders when they come.
[That, in turn, could create a crush of waiver requests at the FCC.]
[SOURCE: Communications Daily, AUTHOR: Tania Panczyk-Collins]
(Not available online)
MEDIA & ELECTIONS
FOX SHUNS DEBATE RESTRICTIONS
Trying to protect the image their candidates project during the upcoming
debates, the campaigns hammered out an agreement that includes guidelines
for news operations covering the event: no cut-aways to other candidates,
no shots from the back, no audience or family cut-aways, and more.
According to a source who worked at one of the network news departments in
2000, the requests aren't all that new. "The campaigns called up and asked
for similar restrictions," which the network promptly ignored, he said,
"they just didn't write them down." Fox, which is providing the network
pool feed for the first presidential debate Thursday night, says it will
not abide by extensive debate coverage restrictions because it was not part
of the negotiations.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA457256.html?display=Breaking+...
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
Fox viewers in the San Francisco area will get to see the first debate
after all. The station will allow Fox Sports Bay Area to cover tonight's
Giants-Padres game and pick up a game later in the season that the cable
channel was to show.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA457254.html?display=Breaking+...
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
BIG BROTHER BARTON
[Editorial] The WSJ does not agree with House Commerce Committee Chairman
Joe Barton's call for hearings on TV new operations. Aside from the fact
that it's a terrible idea to have Congress monitoring the evening news,
what piqued the WSJ's interest is that earlier this month Rep Barton had
dismissed calls for a Congressional probe into Rather-gate and said the
media and viewers should sort it out. The WSJ agrees -- and called his
office for an explanation of this sudden loss of faith in market forces and
the First Amendment. Rep Barton explained that he's just saying it is a
legitimate issue to investigate and that he believes hearings, if they
happen, should not be held until after the election. The editorial
concludes: We're more accustomed to watching the political left play this
game of media intimidation, especially by calling for a return of the
"fairness doctrine." Ever since the FCC deep-sixed that rule in 1987, thus
opening the airwaves to more vigorous commentary, liberals have talked of
restoring it to muzzle the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and other
conservative media voices they don't like. But Mr. Barton's intimations
demonstrate that both sides of the aisle share these dubious tendencies. Be
it Mr. Rather or Mr. Limbaugh, Big Brother has no business telling press
organs how to do their job. In a democracy, that's a function of the
people, who in CBS's case can vote with their remote.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: WSJ Editorial Staff]
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109649985807931919,00.html?mod=todays...
(requires subscription)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PRIVACY
SENATE BILL AIMS AT MAKERS OF FILE-SHARING SOFTWARE
Negotiations on the language of the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act
of 2004 (Induce Act) will be held today and a vote on the bill could come
as early as next week. The legislation is aimed at the makers of
peer-to-peer file-sharing software, rather than at those who use it.
Supporters of the bill say it is needed to curb abuses of intellectual
property rights. Opponents contend that its broad language will stifle
innovation. The bill is opposed by Public Knowledge and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, but also conservative groups like the American
Conservative Union, the national taxpayers Union and the Heritage
Foundation. "Compromising property rights and encouraging predatory, costly
litigation is not a conservative position," ads sponsored by the opposition
say. Supporters contend that in the absence of tough legislation,
commercial enterprises like Kazaa and Grokster will continue to reap
profits from rampant illegal behavior on the peer-to-peer networks.
See much more at the URL below.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Tom Zeller Jr]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/technology/30peer.html
(requires registration)
CARRIERS PROMISE CONGRESS WIRELESS 411 WILL PROTECT PRIVACY
Trust us, really, we're nice guys... we'd never endanger someone's privacy.
That's what the wireless industry told the House Commerce Committee
Wednesday as the panel considered legislation that would mandate opt-in and
opt-out requirements for 411 directories for cell phones. House Telecom
Subcommittee Chairman Upton (R-MI) said in a written statement that
legislation does not appear necessary and chief wireless lobbyist Steve
Largent, the former Congressman, said legislation would stifle development
of such directories. Members had several questions for wireless officials
about wireless service contracts, many of which contain provisions that let
a carrier sell a subscriber's phone number, address and other information.
But the major carriers that plan to participate in the directory told
Congress they wouldn't release personal information and wouldn't take
advantage of the contract language for a wireless directory.
[SOURCE: Communications Daily, AUTHOR: Terry Lane]
(Not available online)
More coverage --
USAToday
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20040930/edit30.art.htm
CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR VETOES PRIVACY BILLS
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) on Wednesday vetoed three bills aimed at
boosting e-mail privacy at work as well as safeguard private medical and
financial data. The e-mail bill that would have required the state's
employers to give workers written notification if e-mail and other Internet
activity was being monitored at work and is similar to a state law that
requires notification if telephone calls are monitored. Supporters said it
would make California a leader in the effort to protect employee privacy
online and could serve as a model for similar bills in other states.
Critics said it would burden employers and is unnecessary because employees
already assume online activities at work are monitored. Business groups
also opposed the bill because any violation of it would be considered a
misdemeanor.
[SOURCE: Reuters]
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=GML3S5JT1N5V4CRBAEOC...
QUICKLY
A CAUTION ON KIDS, TECHNOLOGY
Today the Alliance for Childhood -- a partnership of educators,
researchers, health professionals and other advocates for children -- will
release a report, Tech Tonic, that contends that do not need the technology
education they are receiving to be successful in the 21st century, and
there are growing indications that the high-tech lifestyle promoted by
government and business may be harmful to them. The group finds scant
evidence of long-term benefits from immersing preschool- and school-age
children in electronic technologies. The report makes a series of
recommendations to parents, educators and policymakers, including declaring
one day a week an electronic entertainment-free zone and shifting spending
from unproven high-tech products in the classroom to children's unmet basic
needs.
See the report at
http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/pdf_files/tech_to...
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Valerie Strauss]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60551-2004Sep29.html
(requires registration)
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
32ND RESEARCH CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATION, INFORMATION AND INTERNET POLICY
(TPRC)
An annual forum for scholars engaged in publishable research on
policy-relevant telecommunications and information issues, and for public-
and private-sector decision makers engaged in telecommunications and
information policy. The purpose of the conference is to acquaint policy
makers with the best of recent research and to familiarize researchers with
the knowledge needs of policy makers. This year's TPRC will be held October
1-3, 2004 hosted by The National Center for Technology & Law, George Mason
University School of Law.
http://www.tprc.org/
MAKING THE GRADE?: A REPORT CARD ON US POLICIES FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
(CPSR)
Annual Conference of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility --
Saturday, October 16
With the presidential election rapidly approaching, people are taking stock
of what the Bush Administration has or has not achieved during its time in
office. What has the administration achieved with its policies on
telecommunications, radio frequency spectrum, mass media, the Internet,
electronic commerce, privacy protection, spam and consumer protection, and
media convergence? What about its policies on the application of ICT in
fields like privacy protection and homeland security, electoral voting, and
the work place? What has it done with respect to global policy challenges
like Internet governance, international trade, intellectual property, and
the developing countries? Experts from academia, civil society
organizations, and the private sector will analyze the administration's
performance on a variety of ICT issues and each give a "grade" on the
merits. Later in the conference, these grades will be aggregated and
averaged in a "Report Card"---a big picture overview of and cumulative
final grade on current US policy. The conference will conclude with an
open discussion on how to advance a public interest agenda that is suited
to the current technological and policy environment, and on the roles that
CPSR and other progressive advocacy organizations can play in such an
effort. The conference sessions will be interactive and offer ample
opportunity for audience members to weigh in with their views.
http://cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg04/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online news summary service
provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday through
Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments,
policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are
factually accurate, their often informal tone does not always represent the
tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang
(headlines( at )benton.org) -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------