October 2005

For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org

TELEVISION
Senate Digital TV Bill Sets April 2009 'Hard Date'
Frist Lobbied on Multicast Must-Carry
Unlicensed To Kill DTV?
Cities' Franchising Power Short-Circuited?
TV Downloads May Undercut ABC Stations
Channeling David Hasselhoff

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
A Message for the Masses, but Are They Tuning In?
On the Right, Caught in the Middle
Storm Clouds Over Washington
Freedom of the Owner of the Press

QUICKLY -- Martin Remakes FCC; Time for a real Internet highway; Ready for=
=20
High-Tech Progress?

TELEVISION

SENATE DIGITAL TV BILL SETS APRIL 2009 'HARD DATE'
Analog television broadcasting would go dark on April 7, 2009, under draft=
=20
digital television legislation by the Senate Commerce Committee. The=20
setting of April 7, 2009 as the so-called hard date for the digital TV=20
transition means that, after such time, every American would have to have a=
=20
digital TV set, a set-top converter box, or a subscription to a cable or=20
satellite service to obtain television reception. A draft bill floated=20
earlier this year by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX)=
=20
contained a hard date of Dec. 31, 2008; Rep Barton=92s panel is expected to=
=20
mark up digital TV transition legislation during the week of Oct. 24. The=
=20
Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to take up the digital TV transition=
=20
this coming Wednesday. The draft bill, circulated on Capitol Hill late last=
=20
week, takes no position on whether cable TV operators =93must carry=94 the=
=20
multiple signals that an individual station can broadcast in the digital=20
spectrum. The bill instructs the FCC to 1) auction 60 megahertz of the=20
radio frequencies to be reclaimed when broadcasters cease analog=20
transmissions and 2) make another 24 megahertz of such spectrum available=
=20
for public safety uses.
[SOURCE: CongressDaily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-ZQLO1129320108013.html
* Senate Panel to Consider '09 Switch to Digital TV
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112949984383770080.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one
(requires subscription)
* Senate DTV Bill Would Set April 2009 Hard Transition Date
[SOURCE: Communications Daily, AUTHOR: Anne Veigle, Paul Gluckman]
(Not available online)
* DTV Date: April 7, 2009
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6272901?display=3DBreaking+Ne...
referral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
* US Senate draft digital TV bill sets move for 2009
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DtechnologyNews&sto...
D=3D2005-10-14T164210Z_01_EIC459536_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-DIGITALTV.xml&arc=
hived=3DFalse
* Senators to Mull April '09 Digital Date
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=3D100...
6315
* Senate Hard Date: April 7, 2009
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6272985.html?display=3DBreaking+News
* See the text of this bill and follow its progress through the Senate at:
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dnode/369

FRIST LOBBIED ON MULTICAST MUST-CARRY
A dozen conservative including American for Tax Reform, the Competitive=20
Enterprise Institute, and the Property Alliance have sent a letter to=20
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), advising against mandating cable=
=20
carriage of digital television broadcasters' multicast signals. The groups=
=20
argue that multicast must-carry would impose an "unreasonable and likely=20
unconstitutional burden on cable operators" and that the move represents a=
=20
massive seizure without compensation from broadcasters.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6273140.html?display=3DBreaki...
News&referral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

UNLICENSED TO KILL DTV?
A battle between the broadcast industry and backers of a more wide-open=20
spectrum policy is turning into wide-open warfare. The Association for=20
Maximum Service Television (MSTV), essentially the broadcasting industry=92=
s=20
spectrum watchdog, has been showing a videotape to staffers of the House=20
and Senate Commerce committees warning of the dangers of allowing=20
unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi=ADenabled laptops, to operate in the spac=
es=20
between DTV channels. Backers of the devices say the video is a =93shameles=
s=94=20
attempt by broadcasters to protect their spectrum windfall from the digital=
=20
transition. computer companies said to include Microsoft and Intel, as well=
=20
as independent wireless Internet service providers, are pressuring Congress=
=20
to allow the smart devices to utilize unused frequencies. The issue could=
=20
be included in one of the DTV-related bills that Congress is considering as=
=20
it sets the rules of the road for spectrum reallocation during the DTV=20
transition. A principal advocate in Washington for the smart-device=20
spectrum scenario has been the New America Foundation, which says that,=20
rather than worrying about legitimate interference, broadcasters are being=
=20
alarmist and obstructionist and simply want to warehouse spectrum that they=
=20
can expand into at a later date.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6273137?display=3DNews&referral=
=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

CITIES' FRANCHISING POWER SHORT-CIRCUITED?
Local Texas cable regulators and the companies they oversee are getting=20
their first glimpses of the state=92s telecommunications future under a new=
=20
regime of reduced local regulation. They don't like what they see all that=
=20
much. In several cities, officials have spent thousands of dollars on=20
consultants and ascertainment studies to determine the issues to be=20
negotiated in their cable refranchise talks -- only to have the operators=
=20
walk away from the table. The uncertainty is caused by SB5, the recent=20
telecommunications-reform law fought by cities and incumbent cable=20
operators, which lets competitors file for statewide video franchises.=20
Incumbent cable operators can also file for state authority once their=20
current franchises expire. That=92s a benefit to incumbents, because the ne=
w=20
state application is a simple, 17-day process, as opposed to local=20
negotiations that can run up to five years of formal and informal=20
negotiations, addressing issues ranging from public-access channel support=
=20
to building institutional networks. The local authority wielded by city=20
officials will diminish, a trend they find troubling. Consumers with=20
service complaints will now have to call the state Public Utility Commissio=
n.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Haugsted]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6273090.html?display=3DPolicy
(requires subscription)
* SBC Expects a Statewide Franchise Soon
Texas could grant SBC Communications statewide authority to operate its=20
=93U-verse TV=94 Internet-protocol video service by early next month, now t=
hat=20
it has filed for a franchise.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Haugsted]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6273091.html?display=3DPolicy
(requires subscription)

TV DOWNLOADS MAY UNDERCUT ABC STATIONS
Last Thursday morning, Apple Computer started selling an episode of the hit=
=20
television series "Lost" through its iTunes Music Store for $1.99 after the=
=20
show aired the night before on ABC. It marked the first time a popular show=
=20
was made available for legal downloading over the Internet so quickly after=
=20
its original airing. With that, Apple may have helped open a Pandora's box=
=20
for the media business. The company and its first TV partner -- Walt Disney=
=20
Co., the parent of ABC -- have taken a potentially significant step in the=
=20
dismantling of a decades-old system for distributing TV programming to=20
viewers, a move that could have profound long-term consequences for=20
broadcasters, cable systems and satellite companies if more users download=
=20
shows instead of watching them the old-fashioned way. Apple's deal with=20
Disney is already causing waves in the TV business. On Friday, Leon Long,=
=20
the president of the association representing ABC's affiliate stations,=20
expressed misgivings about the partnership. In a letter Mr. Long sent to=20
the president of the ABC network, Alex Wallau, Mr. Long said ABC affiliates=
=20
are concerned that they weren't given an opportunity for financial=20
participation in a new form of distributing shows that derives value=20
through the promotion and broadcasting of affiliates. For TV affiliates,=20
Apple's new offering "is really bad," says Josh Bernoff, an analyst at=20
Forrester Research. "You don't get anything. You just get a smaller=20
audience," he says. Also concerned about the Apple-Disney partnership are=
=20
the unions that represent TV-show writers, producers, directors and actors.=
=20
Soon after Disney and Apple's announcement, those unions issued a joint=20
statement saying, "We look forward to a dialogue that ensures our members=
=20
are properly compensated for this exploitation of their work." The Disney=
=20
deal with Apple is part of a whirl of efforts at all major media companies=
=20
to explore new means of distributing TV shows.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Nick Wingfield=20
nick.wingfield( at )wsj.com, Joe Flint joe.flint( at )wsj.com and Ethan Smith=20
ethan.smith( at )wsj.com]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112951305777370362.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace
(requires subscription)
* Joint Statement by AFTRA, DGA, SAG, WGAE, WGAw, on the Announcement of=20
the Apple Video iPod
http://www.aftra.org/press/statement_2005_10_12_videoipod.htm
* Unions seek video iPod residuals
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DtechnologyNews&sto...
D=3D2005-10-17T103434Z_01_HAR737815_RTRUKOC_0_US-WRITERS-IPOD.xml
* Media players tune in to podcasts' potential
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DinternetNews&storyID=
=3D2005-10-17T103510Z_01_HAR737836_RTRUKOC_0_US-PODCASTS.xml

CHANNELING DAVID HASSELHOFF
Cable channeling, that is. When General Electric Co. struck a $14 billion=
=20
deal to merge its NBC unit with Universal Studios two years ago, there was=
=20
big talk about exploiting Universal's library of 55,000 television episodes=
=20
and 9,000 movies to create new TV channels. Among the ideas tossed around:=
=20
NBC could use Universal, home to the trio of "Law & Order" juggernauts and=
=20
older police dramas such as "The Rockford Files" and "Dragnet," to create=
=20
an all-crime channel. Now, almost 18 months after the deal was completed,=
=20
no major new channels have materialized in the U.S., where demand has=20
diminished. Many American households already have access to hundreds of TV=
=20
channels. Cable-TV operators are more interested in developing new services=
=20
such as video-on-demand than in carrying new channels. Although new=20
channels in the U.S. remain a possibility, NBC Universal is first looking=
=20
overseas. Last month, in what is likely to be a trial run for further=20
initiatives, NBC introduced a channel in Germany, airing a diet rich in old=
=20
Universal movies and TV shows. NBC Universal hopes a success in Germany=20
will turn into a string of international expansions in Eastern Europe, Asia=
=20
and Mexico. Overseas markets generate only about 20% of NBC Universal's=20
annual revenue of $15 billion; the company hopes to change that. "Could it=
=20
be 50-50 in five years? Maybe," says Brandon Burgess, executive vice=20
president of business development.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Mike Esterl mike.esterl( at )dowjones.com=
=20
and Brooks Barnes brooks.barnes( at )wsj.com ]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112951643506170425.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace
(requires subscription)

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

A MESSAGE FOR THE MASSES, BUT ARE THEY TUNING IN?
Does anyone listen to the President's weekly radio address? The broadcast,=
=20
usually recorded on Fridays as a filler for slow-news Saturdays, is one of=
=20
the little-noticed but crucial ways that President Bush tries to drive home=
=20
his message, even if the White House says it has no clear idea of how many=
=20
people actually listen to it. "I think it's definitely in the millions,"=20
said Jeanie Mamo, the White House director of media affairs. But Ms. Mamo,=
=20
who oversees the radio broadcasts, admitted that she was in the realm of=20
speculation because the White House did not monitor how many of the 14,000=
=20
radio stations in the nation carried the president's words. Arbitron, the=
=20
radio ratings service, did not know either, although Thom Mocarsky,=20
Arbitron's vice president for communications, said there were on average 43=
=20
million Americans listening to radio when the address is aired. The bottom=
=20
line for President Bush is that the huge radio audience is less of a=20
challenge to crack than television in prime time, when the networks=20
sometimes balk at breaking into programming to carry a presidential speech.=
=20
"It's easier to get five minutes on radio stations on a Saturday morning=20
than it is to shake loose TV time," Mr. Mocarsky said.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Elisabeth Bumiller]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/politics/17letter.html
(requires registration)

ON THE RIGHT, CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
The Harriet Miers nomination for Supreme Court has created a fratricidal=20
battle at the heart of a conservative media establishment that, to=20
outsiders at least, has long seemed to operate with enormous message=20
discipline. But the new dissension raises a host of questions: Does the=20
White House see journalists on the right as being on the team, and punish=
=20
transgressors by limiting access? Do conservative media folks have a=20
responsibility to challenge Bush when he deviates from their principles --=
=20
and if so, why haven't they done it until now? Are former administration=20
officials expected to abide by an unspoken loyalty oath, and how long does=
=20
it last? The spectacle of former Bush speech writer David Frum, George=20
Will, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, John Podhoretz, the Weekly=20
Standard's Bill Kristol and other conservative commentators breaking with=
=20
their president over Miers has the feel of a messy family feud. These,=20
after all, are the political pugilists who are usually slapping around=20
liberals and Democrats. But there is something about Bush picking his White=
=20
House counsel and longtime personal lawyer -- and passing over a batch of=
=20
conservative judges with sterling credentials -- that has inflamed his=20
normally loyal media supporters. Former Republican Party chairman Ed=20
Gillespie says he's detected a whiff of sexism in the opposition to Miers.=
=20
Fox News anchor Brit Hume has noted that many critics of the Southern=20
Methodist University graduate went to elite Eastern schools. This prompted=
=20
Frum -- a proud graduate of Yale and Harvard Law -- to fire back at "Brit=
=20
Hume's and Fred Barnes' embarrassing repetition of Ed Gillespie's talking=
=20
points: 'Brawwwwwk-sexism; brawwwwwwk-elitism; brawwwwwwwwwk-Harvard;=20
brawwwwwwwwwk; brawwwwwkk; brawwwwwk.'" Barnes, the Standard's executive=20
editor, says that he thinks Frum's opposition is legitimate but that it is=
=20
unfair to challenge the motives of those who disagree. "The notion that=20
Brit and I are merely tools of Ed Gillespie or the White House is insulting=
=20
and wrong," says Barnes, adding that he hadn't talked to Gillespie all=20
week. "That's the kind of thing liberals do." Barnes also dismisses as=20
"ridiculous" Frum's contention that Miers should not have been picked even=
=20
if she turns out to be a solid conservative vote on the court.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Howard Kurtz]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR200510...
1154.html
(requires registration)
Also see:
* The Media and the War: Any Lessons Learned?
In his valedictory column last Sunday, outgoing Washington Post Ombudsman=
=20
Michael Getler once again took up his newspaper=92s failure to subject the=
=20
Bush administration=92s arguments for war in Iraq to the scrutiny they=20
obviously demanded. He terms this failure =93by far the single most importa=
nt=20
and most disappointing performance by the press, including The Post,=94 and=
=20
notes, =93The key question for journalists is how the process of vetting th=
e=20
main prewar rationale for sending Americans into a war took place, or=20
failed to take place.=94
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=3DbiJRJ8OVF&b=3D1106661

STORM CLOUDS OVER WASHINGTON
Alleged failures by the National Weather Ser=ADvice to properly disseminate=
=20
information prior to Hurricane Katrina have revived interest in=20
controversial legislation. A bill proposed by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)=20
could leave TV-station meteorology departments more reliant than ever on=20
private weather services. Introduced earlier this year, Bill 786 would=20
prevent the National Weather Service (NWS) from offering forecasts that=20
compete with those offered by private services like AccuWeather or=20
WeatherData. That would force stations that rely on free NWS forecasts to=
=20
pay for commercial ones. Proponents say the bill benefits local=20
broadcasters by forcing the NWS to be more forthcoming and not play=20
favorites in the media. They point to actions taken by the NWS prior to=20
Katrina as a perfect example of what they consider a major problem. Many=20
station execs are unhappy about the bill. The NWS isn't wild about the bill=
=20
either. Whether or not Bill 786 becomes law, some believe it will at least=
=20
get the NWS to better address its relationship with the private sector. In=
=20
a report titled =93Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and=20
Climate Services,=94 The Weather Channel (TWC) suggested putting a system i=
n=20
place to manage the boundaries between the NWS and commercial services, as=
=20
opposed to establishing the strict controls that Santorum=92s bill would=20
mandate. Says Ray Ban, TWC executive VP, meteorology science and strategy,=
=20
=93The industry has the obligation to build the right mechanism that would=
=20
leverage the competencies of the entire weather market.=94
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Ken Kerschbaumer]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6273062.html?display=3DTechno...
y&referral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

FREEDOM OF THE OWNER OF THE PRESS
Over the last year or so, policymakers and legislators have been peppered=
=20
with mailings instigated by the Assn. of American Publishers, warning of a=
=20
development that "raises the specter of government censorship and=20
encroachment upon scholarly discourse and academic freedom. The publishers=
=20
were referring specifically to a proposal by the National Institutes of=20
Health that would have required any NIH-funded research paper to be posted=
=20
on a public archive within six months of its publication in a=20
subscription-only scientific journal. But their attack was really one front=
=20
in a war that is challenging the basic economic models of scholarly=20
publishing. Rather than charge subscription fees, the Public Library of=20
Science (PLoS) charges researchers to publish their papers; the current fee=
=20
is $1,500. The idea is not chiefly to save money for universities at the=20
expense of faculty members -- indeed, for universities with large=20
faculties, the new model may be more costly than the old. The real goal is=
=20
to wrest research copyrights from journal publishers; when researchers are=
=20
paying for publication, they, not the publishers, retain control of their=
=20
papers.
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Michael Hiltzik]
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-golden17oct17,1,64412...
column?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business
(requires registration)

QUICKLY

ALL SHOOK UP: MARTIN REMAKES THE FCC
Since taking the reins in March, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has put his own=
=20
chiefs atop five of the FCC=92s six operating bureaus, which develop and=20
implement regulatory programs in media and communications. He has moved=20
less aggressively in finding new people to head the agency=92s nine staff=
=20
offices, which provide support services in engineering, law and the like.=
=20
But in bureaus and offices, Chairman Martin has quietly removed key people=
=20
from posts deep in the commission, where vital analyses are performed and=
=20
legal opinions drafted.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6273150.html
(requires subscription)

TIME FOR A REAL INTERNET HIGHWAY
[Commentary] The recent Level 3 Communications/Cogent Communications=20
tiff/Internet disruption raises some questions: Who owns the Internet? Is=
=20
competition the best or only way to determine that ownership? Sure, the=20
Internet is a great way to deliver content. But the Internet is not simply=
=20
a new medium. It's also a marketplace. A global system for private=20
communication. An art gallery without walls, an archive without shelves,=20
the planet's largest collection of sound and music. The Internet is a=20
utility, without which our daily lives cannot be productive or interesting.=
=20
Governments, companies and institutions now need it to function. So do you=
=20
and I. We now need broadband to live, work, recreate and even make a=20
profit. Many local areas of America are attacking the need for broadband=20
ubiquity, but perhaps it's time for a national program. Fiber, cable or=20
wireless -- many areas of America are not going to run a profit for any=20
broadband service provider. It's time for the National System of Interstate=
=20
and Homeland Defense Broadband. Private companies will make billions=20
building the system, as with the interstate highways. Once it's done, we'll=
=20
all profit.
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Harry Fuller]
http://news.com.com/Time+for+a+real+Internet+highway/2010-1028_3-5894664...
ml?tag=3Dfd_carsl

READY FOR HIGH-TECH PROGRESS?
[Commentary] A lot of Washington debates are about managing bad stuff: war,=
=20
terrorism, natural disasters, killer viruses, budget deficits, trade=20
deficits, medical inflation, airline bankruptcies, imploding corporate=20
pension plans. But policy also needs to focus on the good stuff: To figure=
=20
out how we can accelerate progress. If we don't fix the budget deficit, we=
=20
will be setting ourselves up for economic punishment. But if we don't=20
position ourselves to take advantage of technology, we will be setting=20
ourselves up to miss a huge economic prize. What must we do to remain=20
prize-worthy? The good news is that, in Bill Gates's estimation, between 17=
=20
and 19 of the world's top 20 computer science faculties are American, and=
=20
Microsoft hasn't yet moved many software jobs offshore. But to keep things=
=20
that way we need to step up federal research funding and relax post-Sept.=
=20
11 visa rules, so that the United States remains what Gates calls "an IQ=20
magnet." And because smart Indians, Chinese and others are more likely to=
=20
return home as their countries grow freer and more prosperous, the United=
=20
States must focus on growing its own talent. Last year two respected global=
=20
surveys of math skills in eighth and ninth grades put the United States in=
=20
15th and 24th place, respectively. That isn't good enough. It would take=20
fairly little to address these problems. Last week a panel convened by the=
=20
National Academies proposed a package of measures that ranged from math=20
prizes for high schoolers to pay raises for math teachers, along with a=20
program to boost federal research funding by 10 percent annually for seven=
=20
years. The total price tag comes to $10 billion annually, but the nation=20
spends nearly twice that amount on absurd farm subsidies. What kind of=20
priorities are those?
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Sebastian Mallaby mallabys( at )washpost.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR200510...
0798.html
(requires registration)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, White Sox. Wow, wow, White Sox! Chicago returns to the promised land.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online news summary service=20
provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday through=
=20
Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments,=
=20
policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are=20
factually accurate, their often informal tone does not always represent the=
=20
tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang=20
(headlines( at )benton.org) -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------