February 2005

MEDIA POLICY
Broadcasters Seek Rule Review
FCC Delays Some Kid TV Rules
Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Competition in the Television Marketplace
Low Power FM Forum
PTC Targets MTV in New Study

CABLE
Affils Want DTV Vote Delayed
NCTA, Public TV Reach Carriage Deal
FCC Offers =9206 Set-Top Compromise
AOL and Cable Sibling Form Partnership

TELECOM
Telecom Deals Spur Question: Who Is Next?
Large Cost Cuts a Crucial Goal for SBC Deal
Deal Unlikely to Push up Consumer Prices
Who Killed Ma Bell?
NCTA Concerned About SBC-AT&T

JOURNALISM
Defiant Columnists Shouldn't be able to Brush off Transgressions
Campaign Legal Center Asks DOJ to Investigate "Pay to Sway" Controversy
Stop Taxpayer Subsidies for all Broadcasters! End Public Broadcasting!

INTERNET
Law Barring Junk E-Mail Allows a Flood Instead
Broadband Reaching Critical Mass in US

QUICKLY -- Russian Newspaper Issues Wry Retraction; The Iran Channel

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING IN THE BLOG-O-SPHERE? -- Indecency (of course) and=20
lobbying tactics

MEDIA POLICY

BROADCASTERS SEEK RULE REVIEW
As expected, Tribune, Fox, NBC Universal, and Viacom (which owns CBS),=20
weighed in Monday at the Supreme Court, asking it to review an appeals=20
court decision remanding the FCC's rules for lack of sufficient=20
justification.Also as expected, the broadcasters are using the opportunity=
=20
to ask for review of the Supreme Court's Red Lion decision (the spectrum=20
scarcity rationale) for regulation of broadcast speech. Broadcasters argue=
=20
that the Philadelphia court remand is in conflict with earlier Supreme=20
Court and other appeals court decisions on "the treatment of regulation=20
that singles out a particular class of speakers," as well as an earlier=20
Washington, DC circuit court decision on the status of ownership rules.=20
Also asking the court to review the decision were the National Association=
=20
of Broadcasters and the Newspaper Association of America. The FCC's=20
remanded rules would allow companies to own newspapers and stations in the=
=20
same market. Those combos are currently precluded except for a number of=20
grandfathered markets, and ones where companies, like Tribune, bought=20
stations in newspaper markets with the expectation of the rule change.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton ]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA500420?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
Dust off that law degree and take a gander at what broadcasters are asking=
=20
of the Supreme Court in the Prometheus Radio Project vs FCC appeal.
[SOURCE: National Association of Broadcasters]
http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/PressRel/Filings/NABMediaOwnershipAppeal1-31...
5.pdf

FCC DELAYS SOME KID TV RULES
On Monday, the FCC, on its own motion, deferred the effective date of some=
=20
newly adopted children's television rules that were to go into effect today=
=20
until January 1, 2006. Specifically, the delayed rules concern the display=
=20
of Internet Web site addresses during programs directed to children ages 12=
=20
and under. They are permissible, but only if they meet the following=20
criteria: 1) the Web site offers a substantial amount of bona fide=20
program-related or other noncommercial content; 2) the Web site is not=20
primarily intended for commercial purposes, including either e-commerce or=
=20
advertising; 3) the Web site's home page and other menu pages are clearly=20
labeled to distinguish the noncommercial from the commercial sections; and=
=20
4) the page of the Web site to which viewers are directed is not used for=20
e-commerce, advertising, or other commercial purposes (e.g., contains no=20
links labeled "store" and no links to another page with commercial=20
material). The display of Web site addresses in children's programs is=20
prohibited during both program material and commercial material when the=20
site uses characters from the program to sell products or services. A=20
number of broadcasters and cable operators and programmers have expressed=20
concern that compliance with these new requirements by the February 1,=20
2005, effective date will be difficult.
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-22A1.doc

MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON COMPETITION IN THE TELEVISION MARKETPLACE
The FCC is seeking comment for a report & report it must complete for=20
Congress. They concern the impact on competition in the multichannel video=
=20
programming distribution [read: pay TV] market of the current=20
retransmission consent, network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and=
=20
sports blackout rules, including the impact of those rules on the ability=20
of rural cable operators to compete with the direct broadcast satellite=20
industry in the provision of digital broadcast television signals to=20
consumers. The report is to include recommendations for changes in current=
=20
law. Comments are due March 1; reply comments due March 16. The FCC must=20
report to Congress by September 8. For further information, contact Marcia=
=20
Glauberman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-7046.
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-169A1.doc

LOW POWER FM FORUM
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host a Low Power FM Forum=
=20
focusing on the experiences of low power FM licensees getting on the air,=20
staying on the air, and meeting local needs and on issues affecting the=20
future of low power FM. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be=20
broadcast live over the Internet from the FCC's Audio/Video Events web page=
=20
at www.fcc.gov/realaudio. Contact: Peggy Greene, peggy.greene( at )fcc.gov,=20
202-418-2389
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-165A1.doc

PTC TARGETS MTV IN NEW STUDY
The Parents Television Council always knew there was something wrong with=20
that dang music video channel, but it will release a report today that=20
defines precisely what's wrong: MTV peddles =93sex, drugs and alcohol.=94=
And=20
so, policymakers need to give parents more control by allowing them pay=20
only for the cable channels they want in their homes. The report, =93MTV=
Smut=20
Peddlers: Targeting Kids with Sex, Drugs and Alcohol," will "present the=20
most compelling case yet for consumer cable choice," PTC promises.
Sex and drugs and rock and roll | Is all my brain and body need | Sex and=20
drugs and rock and roll | Are very good indeed.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA500285.html?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA500353?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
In a related story...
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which represents some=20
2,400 conservative state legislators nationwide, adopted a resolution=20
Monday opposing "government intervention in the cable marketplace that=20
would require cable and satellite providers to offer all programming on an=
=20
"a la carte" or pay-per-channel basis."
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: ]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA500349?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

CABLE

AFFILS WANT DTV VOTE DELAYED
Six hundred and fifty affiliates of the ABC, CBS and NBC networks, stations=
=20
covering 98% of the country, have joined the Belo station group in calling=
=20
on the FCC to postpone its planned February ruling on DTV must-carry. They=
=20
say that the FCC should not heed the request of "some broadcasters" (Paxson=
=20
Communications in particular), that it make the decision now. The stations=
=20
say that with Congress considering legislating a new hard date for the=20
giveback of spectrum now used for analog TV, the FCC needs to be able to=20
"take into account the imminent changes in the broader, fundamental=20
legislative environment that should critically affect the proper=20
consideration of these issues."
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA500331?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

NCTA, PUBLIC TV REACH CARRIAGE DEAL
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the Association of=
=20
Public Television Stations have agreed in principle to a plan to carry on=20
cable systems throughout the country multiple digital services of public=20
television stations under a 10-year agreement. The agreement establishes=20
carriage terms during the transition to digital-only broadcasting and after=
=20
it. Under the deal, cable operators agreed to carry all analog TV signals=20
during the transition, plus up to four digital-multicast services provided=
=20
by a single station in the market. After the transition, when analog=20
spectrum has been returned, cable operators will carry up to four=20
digital-multicast services of each public station in the market. However,=20
the agreement calls for dropping multicast services if they duplicate=20
services of another station in the market. Public stations that surrender=20
their analog signals before the formal end of the transition may exercise=20
their multicast-carriage rights at that point. To take effect, the boards=20
of the NCTA, the APTS and PBS must approve the agreement, followed by=20
ratification within 60 days by cable operators that serve 80% of cable=20
subscribers and by public stations that reach 80% of TV households. Cable=20
operators will start carrying stations within 180 days of ratification.=20
NCTA president Robert Sachs said the trade group=92s executive committee --=
=20
which includes MSOs that serve 90% of cable subscribers -- has already=20
approved the deal. The agreement, for now, leaves commercial TV stations in=
=20
the cold and counting on Congress or the Federal Communications Commission=
=20
to mandate multicast carriage if private talks remain stalled.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA500176.html?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA500168?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
In the chess match that is the transition to digital-only broadcasting,=20
today's announcements means some important pieces have been removed from=20
the table. There will be a good deal of digestion and indigestion in=20
Washington. Here's links to players in the announcement and reaction from=20
all over.
APTS: http://www.apts.org/
NCTA: http://www.ncta.com/press/press.cfm?PRid=3D573&showArticles=3Dok
REACTION
* FCC Chairman=20
Powell:http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256435A1.doc
* Commissioner Abernathy:=20
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256434A1.doc
* Commissioner Copps:=20
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256449A1.doc
* National Association of Broadcasters:=20
http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/PressRel/statements/013105NCTAPBSdeal.htm
* Center for Democratic Media:=20
http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/NCTAAPTS.html

FCC OFFERS '06 SET-TOP COMPROMISE
An FCC rule, first adopted in 1998, bans integrated set-tops and forces=20
cable operators to lease boxes that work with external CableCARDs to=20
provide conditional access to scrambled content. The consumer-electronics=20
industry, supported by Microsoft and Intel, argued the ban is necessary to=
=20
establish a competitive set-top market and to allow consumers to buy units=
=20
at retail outlets such as Best Buy and Circuit City. The National Cable &=20
Telecommunications Association has repeatedly told the FCC that the ban=20
would raise set-top costs by $93 per unit without providing subscribers any=
=20
offsetting benefits. So NCTA has asked the FCC to drop the ban or postpone=
=20
for 18 months past its July 2006 implementation date. What to do? What to=20
do? FCC staff have crafted a compromise designed to bridge the differences=
=20
between industries by retaining ban but providing an exemption for=20
low-cost digital boxes.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA499923.html?display=3DPolicy&refer...
=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

AOL AND CABLE SIBLING FORM PARTNERSHIP
Fell the synergy! America Online and Time Warner Cable finally overcame=20
their differences yesterday, putting in place a partnership to connect=20
computer users to the Internet that was cited five years ago as a key=20
reason for the $112 billion America Online-Time Warner merger. Under the=20
terms of the new partnership, the two companies will team up to provide=20
high-speed Internet service in New York and other areas served by Time=20
Warner Cable. The cable company will furnish the physical connections to=20
the Internet while Dulles-based AOL provides e-mail services and other=20
online content. As part of the agreement, AOL will encourage its roughly 3=
=20
million dial-up subscribers who live in areas served by Time Warner Cable=20
to keep their AOL accounts and upgrade to Time Warner's faster cable=20
service. The partnership is aimed in part at helping AOL stem the=20
continuing loss of dial-up subscribers to faster or cheaper Internet=20
services. And it is also designed to help Time Warner Cable grow faster by=
=20
adding new users and garnering more ad dollars.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: David A. Vise]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52853-2005Jan31.html
(requires registration)

TELECOM

TELECOM DEALS SPUR QUESTION: WHO IS NEXT?
With two mammoth mergers announced in the U.S. telecommunications industry=
=20
in the past two months, investors and analysts are busily trying to figure=
=20
out what may be coming next in the rapidly consolidating industry. Will=20
Verizon try to buy MCI? Or will BellSouth consider adding the long distance=
=20
company? Will anyone buy Qwest, the smallest of the Baby Bells? Could=20
Verizon try to buy Sprint which is buying Nextel? Analysts believe that if=
=20
there is to be another big deal, the companies involved should announce it=
=20
soon. Multiple deals going through the regulatory process at the same time=
=20
will have a better chance of passing muster because regulators are likely=20
to view them together -- as a single change to the industry. If one=20
blockbuster deal comes after the next, regulators could become=20
progressively more cautious as the industry consolidates.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Jesse Drucker at=
jesse.drucker( at )wsj.com]
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110721307819741641,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_money_and_investing
(requires subscription)

LARGE COST CUTS A CRUCIAL GOAL FOR SBC DEAL
The acquisition of AT&T offers SBC many advantages, industry analysts say,=
=20
but also presents big challenges, starting with the projection that AT&T's=
=20
revenue is likely to fall about $5 billion this year. Edward E. Whitacre=20
Jr., SBC's chief executive, says that combining AT&T's strength in the=20
corporate telephone and data market with SBC's local phone lines, Internet=
=20
services and mobile phone division could make SBC a telecommunications=20
provider able to meet everyone's needs. SBC is banking on cost savings=20
gained mainly from, you guessed it, job cuts. The companies say they expect=
=20
$15 billion in savings and new revenue by the end of the decade, with 85=20
percent of that coming from cost cuts and the rest from new revenue=20
sources. Most of the savings will come from eliminating jobs. The companies=
=20
said that merging their corporate business units would permit them to=20
eliminate redundant sales and customer service teams and to share networks,=
=20
saving $1.6 billion annually. The companies expect about $600 million in=20
savings by 2009 from consolidating marketing, sales and operations teams.=20
Jobs in human resources, legal services and executive staffs will also be=20
eliminated to save an expected $400 million a year by the end of the decade.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Matt Richtel & Ken Belson]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/business/01place.html
(requires registration)

DEAL UNLIKELY TO PUSH UP CONSUMER PRICES
SBC Communications' purchase of AT&T signals the beginning of the end of=20
the fast-sinking long-distance industry and the rise of a converged=20
communications world featuring the regional Bells and cable giants. For=20
consumers, the loss of AT&T as a rival won't necessarily mean higher prices=
=20
in coming years, as cheaper Internet-based services gain customers. In the=
=20
near future, the deal could prompt other Bells to snap up MCI and possibly=
=20
Sprint to keep pace in the cutthroat market for corporate customers.
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Paul Davidson]
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20050201/2b_telecomfuture01.a...
tm
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20050201/1b_attsbccover01.art...

WHO KILLED MA BELL?
[Editorial] Not that long ago, the idea of someone buying AT&T would have=20
been as ridiculous as someone buying the United States. But the company's=20
drawn-out decline -- recent blows included its expulsion from the Dow Jones=
=20
industrial average and its announcement that it would not seek new=20
residential customers -- provides a textbook case of how technology, poor=20
management, changes in government regulation and even cheating competitors=
=20
can conspire to kill off even the most formidable enterprise.
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-att1feb01,1,42268...
tory?coll=3Dla-news-comment
(requires registration)

NCTA CONCERNED ABOUT SBC-AT&T
Add the cable lobby to the growing list of citizens concerned about the=20
proposed merger of SBC and AT&T. The trade group=92s decision to speak out=
=20
about the phone merger comes as the largest cable operators begin providing=
=20
local phone service over their own facilities in direct competition with=20
SBC and other Baby Bells. Consumer groups attacked the SBC-AT&T deal as=20
another example where the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did a better job=20
of promoting mergers instead of competition. "While this is not the largest=
=20
merger of recent years, it is very troubling because it demonstrates the=20
complete failure of policy to promote competition in the marketplace and=20
would mark one of the final acts in the long-running reconsolidation of the=
=20
industry,=94 Consumers Union senior director of public policy and advocacy=
=20
Gene Kimmelman said in a prepared statement. =93It is time for Congress to=
=20
reconsider the deregulation experiment of the 1996 act and give consumers=20
the protection that market forces are failing to provide,=94 he added.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA500286.html?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
See NCTA Press Release:=20
http://www.ncta.com/press/press.cfm?PRid=3D572&showArticles=3Dok
Additional reaction to the deal --
Consumers Union:=20
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/001825.html...
e
Communications Workers of America:=20
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/PressReleaseDisplay.asp?ID=3D479
US Telecom Association:=20
http://www.usta.org/news_releases.php?urh=3Dhome.news.nr2005_0131
Progress & Freedom Foundatuion:=20
http://www.pff.org/news/news/2005/013105sbc-att.html
Additional coverage of the proposed deal --
WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110721250987441628,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_marketplace
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110721326958641646,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_marketplace
(requires subscription)

JOURNALISM

DEFIANT COLUMNISTS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BRUSH OFF TRANSGRESSIONS
[Commentary] Journalism today is awash with cross-dressers =97 people who,=
=20
one moment, show up on TV or op-ed pages as commentators and columnists,=20
and then quickly morph into the role of activists or politicians. When=20
someone who assumes the role of a journalist also works to promote the=20
interests of others outside the media, he or she blurs the line that=20
separates journalists from carnival barkers. The people who employ them are=
=20
as much to blame for this as these flip-floppers.
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: DeWayne Wickham]
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050201/opcom01.art.htm

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER ASKS DOJ TO INVESTIGATE "PAY TO SWAY" CONTROVERSY
The Campaign Legal Center last week called on the Department of Justice to=
=20
determine whether members of the Bush Administration have violated federal=
=20
law by using government-appropriated funds to pay columnists to promote=20
Administration policies. Federal law forbids the use of appropriated funds=
=20
for "publicity or propaganda," particularly when the source of the=20
propaganda is covert.
[SOURCE: Campaign Legal Center Press Release]
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-1423.html
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachment.html/Letter+to+Hillman+re+...
to+Sway+1-27-05.pdf?id=3D1313

STOP TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR ALL BROADCASTERS! END PUBLIC BROADCASTING!
Why stop at funding propaganda? Conservative media activist Accuracy in=20
Media called on public television and radio to give up their $400 million=20
in taxpayer subsidies. AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid says that it is obvious=20
that the liberal media are only against taxpayer subsidies for journalists=
=20
when they are conservative.
[SOURCE: Accuracy in Media Press Release]
http://www.aim.org/press_release/2567_0_19_0_C/

INTERNET

LAW BARRING JUNK E-MAIL ALLOWS A FLOOD INSTEAD
Since the Can Spam Act went into effect in January 2004, unsolicited junk=20
e-mail on the Internet has come to total perhaps 80 percent or more of all=
=20
e-mail sent, according to most measures. That is up from 50 percent to 60=20
percent of all e-mail before the law went into effect. To some antispam=20
crusaders, the surge comes as no surprise. They had long argued that the=20
law would make the spam problem worse by effectively giving bulk=20
advertisers permission to send junk e-mail as long as they followed certain=
=20
rules. "Can Spam legalized spamming itself," said Steve Linford, the=20
founder of the Spamhaus Project, a London organization that is one of the=20
leading groups intent on eliminating junk e-mail. And in making spam legal,=
=20
he said, the new rules also invited flouting by those intent on being=20
outlaws. Not everyone agrees that the Can Spam law is to blame, and=20
lawsuits invoking the new legislation - along with other suits using state=
=20
laws - have been mounted in the name of combating the problem. Besides=20
Microsoft, other large Internet companies like AOL and Yahoo have used the=
=20
federal law as the basis for suits.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Tom Zeller Jr]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/technology/01spam.html?hp&ex=3D1107320...
en=3Df7486f68b21cb2cc&ei=3D5094&partner=3Dhomepage
(requires registration)

BROADBAND REACHING CRITICAL MASS IN U.S.
With broadband penetration among Internet users now above the 50% mark,=20
consumers have embraced the sight, sound and motion that video on the Web=20
delivers, and this year advertisers will follow and target those consumers=
=20
in earnest.
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Kris Oser]
http://adage.com/news.cms?newsId=3D42431
See also --
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110721860119641844,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_marketplace

QUICKLY

RUSSIAN NEWSPAPER ISSUES WRY RETRACTION
The Russian business daily Kommersant published an edition Monday that was=
=20
blank except for a court-ordered retraction -- published upside down -- and=
=20
other items related to an $11.4 million judgment against the publication.=20
The edition was a satirical protest against a legal finding that the=20
newspaper had erred last summer when it suggested in an article that=20
Moscow-based Alfa Bank was in financial trouble. An appeals court ruled=20
last month that the newspaper, which is owned by the exiled tycoon Boris=20
Berezovsky, a political enemy of Putin's, had damaged the bank's=20
reputation. This is already having an impact on the press in Russia," said=
=20
Andrei Vasilyev, the newspaper's editor in chief. "For many other=20
newspapers this kind of sum would have put them out of business. Russian=20
law does not recommend this kind of severe verdict."
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Peter Finn]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51854-2005Jan31.html
(requires registration)

THE IRAN CHANNEL
Mere days after the vote in neighboring Iraq, the new Iranian revolution=20
may already have begun. Launched from a strip mall in Northern Virginia.=20
This revolution will be televised.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Darragh Johnson]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52897-2005Jan31.html
(requires registration)

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING IN THE BLOG-O-SPHERE?

Buster's Blues
Crucifying cartoon characters has become an obsession with the well-funded=
=20
Christian right. First it was a cohabiting Bert and Ernie, then a purse=20
carrying Tinky Winky, then Barney the purple (heavens!) dinosaur. Now,=20
they've fixed their crosshairs on a hand holding Spongebob and=20
progressively minded Buster. And they have a new partner in intolerance,=20
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.
(MediaCitizen)
http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/01/busters-blues.html
See also --
FAIR: http://www.fair.org/activism/pbs-buster.html
Creative Voices in the Media: http://creativevoices.typepad.com/blog/

Michael Powell Monkey Business
A part of Chairman Powell's legacy will be his own moral "outrage" in the=20
wake of Janet Jackson's now infamous 2004 Super Bowl reveal. This onetime=20
live-and-let-live libertarian thought it prudent to jump on the nanny=20
bandwagon and level a series of FCC fines against big media that didn't fly=
=20
straight. If you think Powell overstepped on this, his was nothing compared=
=20
to the wave of self censorship that subsequently washed over the industry.=
=20
More recent FCC decisions, however, indicate that Powell is now lifting the=
=20
agency's boot off the neck of broadcasters. We have the picture that tells=
=20
the rest of the story.
(MediaCitizen)
http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/01/michael-powell-monkey-business....

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Bunnie Riedel loves to see cable operators and phone companies fight.
http://www.riedelcommunications.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------