November 2005

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

HEARING ON TELECOM ACT REDRAFT THIS MORNING --=20
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11092005hearing1706/hearing...

TELEVISION
Prime Time Gets Redefined
Pay-TV Service Ignites Lobbying Slugfest
Networks Go Boldly -- And Fearfully -- Into TV's Future
TV On-Demand May Make Ads More Targeted
Declining Prices Help to Bring HDTV Into 12% of U.S. Households

INTERNET/BROADBAND
Why are the Telecom Incumbents So Scared?
Holy Toledo! A Surprising Leader in Wireless Access
Promoting Broadband Deployment Across America
Closing Grokster
Grokster, R.I.P.

QUICKLY -- LPFM Update; Digital Radio Update; FTC To Analyze Food Marketing=
=20
To Kids; Wireless Content Guidelines; US voice in Arabia; Open Source=20
Center will Collect Unclassified Information; BellSouth rings up wins in=20
Big Easy; Critics should grasp Google projects before blasting them;=20
Reporters Without Borders and Repressive Regimes; Communications Policy=20
Research Award; Federalist Principles Needed in Telecom Reform

BITS II
This morning, the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on=20
Telecommunications and the Internet is holding a hearing on a staff=20
discussion draft of legislation to create a statutory framework for=20
Internet Protocol and Broadband Services. The bill addresses broadband=20
Internet transmission services (dubbed BITS) and since the Committee is now=
=20
discussing a second draft of the legislation it is being called "BITS II."=
=20
Congress Daily reported earlier this week that the legislation 1) waters=20
down earlier language on network neutrality to allow providers of=20
broadband-based television services to control the Internet content=20
available to customers over such platforms; 2) calculates video franchise=
=20
fees in a way that is more favorable to the Bells -- meaning less revenue=
=20
in the coffers of localities; 3) includes provisions requiring the FCC to=
=20
review its broadband video regulations every four years and eliminate any=
=20
that are "no longer necessary as the result of meaningful economic=20
competition; and 4) does NOT mandate that the Bells make their television=
=20
services available to all citizens in communities where they offer it.
Below is some reaction to the draft and expected testimony at today's=20
hearing which you can watch at the following URL .
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11092005hearing1706/hearing...
For more information on the bill see: http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dn=
ode/65

Testimony of Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union
"For decades, consumers have suffered under monopolistic cable pricing that=
=20
has resulted in skyrocketing cable bills and fewer consumer choices. And=20
despite the promise of more competition in wireless and wire line phone=20
services, consumers have seen more consolidation and fewer marketplace=20
choices. But the advent of broadband now offers tremendous opportunity to=
=20
inject new and potentially vigorous competition into the telecommunications=
=20
marketplace that has become increasingly concentrated over the past decade.=
=20
We applaud the Committee=92s efforts to modernize regulations to foster=20
broadband competition, technological innovation and adoption of high-speed=
=20
Internet. And we welcome the Committee=92s interest in fostering greater=20
consumer choice by prohibiting preemption of municipal broadband networks=
=20
that offer affordable broadband services. That provision helps ensure that=
=20
communities do not face additional roadblocks to affordable broadband=20
access for their residents. Unfortunately, the draft as a whole heads in=20
exactly the wrong direction: it will hamper competition, stifle innovation,=
=20
and do little to promote ubiquitous affordable access to advanced services."

Testimony of Harry "Hap" Haasch, Alliance for Community Media
"Congress has traditionally recognized the need to foster localism in=20
communications. At a time when studies show that less than 0.5% of=20
programming on commercial television is local public affairs, PEG centers=
=20
serve the people in your home town, city, and district. The November 3=20
Staff draft bill, however, would directly and substantially threaten the=20
future of PEG programming throughout the nation. PEG access is only=20
possible if there are adequate funds to support it. The overwhelming=20
majority of PEG funding comes from two sources: (1) monetary and in kind=
=20
support for PEG capital facilities and equipment from the cable operator=20
over and above the 5% cable franchise fee that is required by the local=20
franchise agreement; and (2) contribution by the local franchising=20
authority of a portion of the 5% cable franchise fee to PEG. The November 3=
=20
House Staff draft bill, however, would eliminate one of those sources of=20
funds to support PEG, and substantially reduce the other."

Telecom Subcommittee Hearing =91Early Step in Long Process,' Public Knowled=
ge=20
Says
=93With this hearing, the Subcommittee has started a major initiative towar=
d=20
rewriting the 1996 Telecom Act. We should bear in mind that this hearing is=
=20
only an early step in a long process. The Subcommittee should be applauded=
=20
for beginning the effort to bring our telecommunications laws into the 21st=
=20
century. While the staff draft is appropriately balancing many goals,=20
Public Knowledge believes the balance should be tilted more in favor of=20
consumers and competition. As we look over the draft, there are certain=20
features we can generally endorse. Those include the provisions that would=
=20
allow cities to build broadband networks, would ensure that Voice over=20
Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers are not burdened by state regulation,=20
and would open up the video market to more competition. At the same time,=
=20
we believe more work is needed to strengthen net neutrality language to=20
ensure that the Internet really is kept open. The bill should also do more=
=20
to preserve competitive opportunities for private companies to compete to=
=20
provide local broadband services, and should also do more to ensure=20
broadband service will become affordable for all consumers. We hope the=20
Subcommittee will bring the legislation overall closer to the Principles=20
for an Open Broadband Future: 1) open to competition from any entity,=20
including municipalities; 2) open to the attachment of any equipment the=20
user chooses, as long as it does not harm the technical operation of the=20
broadband network; 3) open and accessible to consumers, application=20
developers, and information service providers and to other networks,=20
without restrictions or degradation, except for law enforcement or for=20
network management purposes; 4) open, available and affordable to all=20
consumers, regardless of income, race, geographic location, or disability;=
=20
and 5) open to the maximally efficient number of licensed and unlicensed=20
wireless providers."
http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/releases/pressrelease.2005-11-0...
133716238

COMPTEL Disappointed with Revised Draft Legislation
"The House Commerce and Energy Committee's revised draft legislation=20
shortchanges consumers by paving the way for the creation of gatekeepers to=
=20
the Internet. The bill would set aside telecommunications as the only=20
network industry where competitors are not allowed to access incumbents'=20
networks at just and reasonable rates. COMPTEL will continue to work hard=
=20
to ensure that Committee members understand the negative effect such=20
legislation will have on consumers and the economy."
http://www.comptelascent.org/news/recent-news/110405.html

USTelecom Statement on House Committee Draft Update of U.S. Telecom Laws
"The Committee=92s =91discussion draft=92 is a welcome update of the nation=
=92s=20
telecom laws to reflect the new world of communications. We applaud its=20
reliance on market-based competition to spur new broadband investment, job=
=20
growth, and increased video choice for consumers. This is a strong start,=
=20
and we look forward to working with Chairmen Barton and Upton and the=20
members of the Committee to further strengthen and broaden the support for=
=20
this important measure. Other critical issues include securing the future=
=20
of universal service, offering regulatory flexibility for rural carriers in=
=20
their provision of broadband service, freeing traditional voice service to=
=20
fully compete and guaranteeing fair compensation to network operators for=
=20
the use of their infrastructure."
http://www.ustelecom.org/news_releases.php?urh=3Dhome.news.nr2005_1103_2

TELEVISION

PRIME TIME GETS REDEFINED
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Steven Pearlstein pearlsteins( at )washpost.co=
m]
[Commentary] For years, the entertainment industry tried to fool us -- and=
=20
itself -- into thinking that it only prospered by giving consumers what=20
they wanted. The real strategy of the entertainment industry has been to=20
force customers to pay inflated prices to watch the movies and television=
=20
most profitable for the industry to produce, at times that allowed the=20
industry to rake in the most money, and distributed through channels=20
designed to keep out upstart competition. But technology now threatens to=
=20
put the consumer back in charge. Thanks to TiVo and other Internet-based=20
technologies, people not only can watch what they want when they want to=20
watch it, but they can also do so without having to watch commercials.=20
Suddenly, the whole concept of a prime-time lineup has been tossed out the=
=20
window, along with an economic model that's been around since Geritol=20
decided to sponsor the Ted Mack amateur hour. While nobody knows exactly=20
how all this will shake out, several things are already clear. Much less of=
=20
what we think of as television will be paid for by advertisers, and more by=
=20
viewers. Television networks will need to hammer out new financial=20
arrangements with local affiliates, which will lose the monopoly they have=
=20
over distribution of network programming in their area. And the big=20
networks will continue to lose market share, not just to niche cable=20
channels, but to interactive gamers and anyone with a good idea, a studio=
=20
and access to the Internet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR200511...
1780.html
(requires registration)
* How to Watch TV
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Grant peter.grant( at )wsj.com &=20
Dionne Searcey dionne.searcey( at )wsj.com]
A guide on video-on-demand, DVRs, TV by cellphone, iPods and video over the=
=20
Internet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113150218439791869.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
sonal_journal
(requires subscription)

PAY-TV SERVICE IGNITES LOBBYING SLUGFEST
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
The cable and telecommunications industries are involved in a slugfest over=
=20
who may offer pay-television programming, and both sides are eager to=20
secure as many nonprofit allies as possible. The heart of the battle pits=
=20
the benefits of competition against the fear of redlining, or=20
discriminating against households based on race or income. Some=20
public-interest groups and lawmakers have highlighted the issue of telecom=
=20
companies only offering video services to wealthier neighborhoods.Tension=
=20
between the cherished goals of competition and universally-available video=
=20
service has split nonprofit groups. Bell supporters include National=20
Consumers League, Consumers for Cable Choice, and the League of United=20
Latin American Citizens. On cable's side are local governments that control=
=20
franchising, community media advocates for "public access" cable and=20
minority groups seeking to ensure their voice is heard via cable=20
programming. The Minority Media and Telecommunications Council believes the=
=20
Bells will discriminate without build-out requirements. "We are going to be=
=20
opposed to redlining," Executive Director David Honig said. "The risk of=20
redlining here is pretty significant," said Jeannine Kenney, a senior=20
policy analyst with Consumers Union. "There is simply no evidence at this=
=20
point that negotiating with localities is necessarily a bar" to=20
Bell-obtained video franchises. "Our point is, if you want to streamline=20
your business cost, then it is essential that at a national level we have a=
=20
set of obligations to serve all consumers in a franchise area," Kenney=20
said. Cable lobbyists also make that point.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-CIKT1131484568957.html
* In VA, Verizon Softens Video Policy
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-GWBY1131482935903.html

NETWORKS GO BOLDLY -- AND FEARFULLY -- INTO TV's FUTURE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brooks Barnes brooks.barnes( at )wsj.com &=
=20
Peter Grant peter.grant( at )wsj.com]
Broadcasters are scrambling to gain a foothold as their traditional=20
business landscape starts to crumble. Technology, from video-enabled cell=
=20
phones to DVRs to the Internet, is increasingly putting content at=20
consumers' fingertips. At the same time, it is pushing the networks away=20
from their decades-old model of broadcasting shows for free and selling ads=
=20
to make money. The result: the networks want to train consumers to think of=
=20
TV shows as products that aren't free -- and make the idea of on-demand=20
ventures more palatable. While television executives are confident that=20
people will still be watching their programs ten years from now -- and that=
=20
they can still realize big profits -- they don't know who will be=20
delivering these shows, or with what kind of technology. For studio owners,=
=20
the arrival of on-demand services and other distribution routes offers the=
=20
chance to "improve returns as consumers will pay for episodes that they=20
might have never have been able to view." Typically, studios must wait=20
several years before they have enough episodes to sell a rerun package. But=
=20
on-demand services allow studios to start generating ancillary revenue more=
=20
quickly, as DVDs have begun to do. TV stations may have a problem, however.=
=20
As TV companies allow consumers to watch TV shows whenever they want=20
instead of chaining them to a weekly schedule, local stations are likely to=
=20
suffer. That's because their profitable local news divisions are likely to=
=20
lose viewers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113150684331791985.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace
(requires subscription)
* How to Watch TV
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Grant peter.grant( at )wsj.com &=20
Dionne Searcey dionne.searcey( at )wsj.com]
A guide on video-on-demand, DVRs, TV by cellphone, iPods and video over the=
=20
Internet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113150218439791869.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
sonal_journal
(requires subscription)

TV ON-DEMAND MAY MAKE ADS MORE TARGETED
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brian Steinberg=20
brian.steinberg( at )wsj.com]
Should network TV video-on-demand deals make ad people furious? Advertising=
=20
executives seemed unruffled by the news. They themselves recognize the same=
=20
set of forces driving CBS and NBC: Technology is giving rise to a multitude=
=20
of new ways to target consumers with entertainment and with commercial=20
messages. Advertising was once a simple mass-market media buy; now it is a=
=20
dialogue between a seller of soup, sneakers or cellphones and a particular=
=20
media outlet's narrow audience. That media outlet is just as likely to be a=
=20
computer screen or a mobile device as a television set, media buyers say.=
=20
As a result, advertisers are starting to treat TV more and more as just one=
=20
conversation among many. Companies are spending more money than ever on=20
media to reach their customers, and advertising agencies are helping them=
=20
find new ways to do it. The difference is that the slices of the pie are=20
getting thinner -- especially television's slice. During the first six=20
months of 2005, 38% of advertisers' media spending went to cable, local and=
=20
network TV, down 13 percentage points from 2000. The financial model for=20
ads in on-demand programming hasn't yet emerged as advertisers look for an=
=20
acceptable measurement of consumer response and figure out whether they=20
should negotiate with the TV network, the on-demand distributor -- or both.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113149442328791674.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace
(requires subscription)
* How to Watch TV
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Grant peter.grant( at )wsj.com &=20
Dionne Searcey dionne.searcey( at )wsj.com]
A guide on video-on-demand, DVRs, TV by cellphone, iPods and video over the=
=20
Internet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113150218439791869.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
sonal_journal
(requires subscription)

DECLINING PRICES HELP TO BRING HDTV INTO 12% OF THE US HOUSEHOLDS
[SOURCE: Leichtman Research Group press release]
New consumer research finds that the percentage of households in the United=
=20
States that have a high definition-capable TV (HDTV) set grew from 7% a=20
year ago to 12% at the end of the third quarter of 2005. Growth has largely=
=20
been spurred by decreasing prices, as the mean reported purchase price of=
=20
new HDTV sets bought in the past year was one-third less than prior HDTV=20
purchases. Other key findings include: 1) 89% of adults nationwide have=20
heard of HDTV, 2) Consumers report spending an average of about $1,600 for=
=20
HDTV sets purchased in the last year =AD compared to $2,400 for HDTV sets=
=20
purchased over a year ago , 3) 18% of current HDTV owners are likely to get=
=20
another HDTV set in the next year and 4) 11% of non-HDTV owners express=20
some likelihood to purchase an HDTV set in the next year if it cost $1,000=
=20
=AD overall likelihood to purchase an HDTV set is virtually unchanged from =
a=20
year ago
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/110805release.html

INTERNET/BROADBAND

WHY ARE THE TELECOM INCUMBENTS SO SCARED?
[SOURCE: saschameinrath.com]
[Commentary] Back in February 2005, I'd uncovered that telecom incumbents=
=20
had spent over $300,000 to defeat local referenda allowing municipal=20
broadband. By comparison, local pro-muni grassroots organizers spent a=20
grand total of $4,325 to support their position. Anyone can tell you, being=
=20
outspent roughly 70 to 1 places you at a serious disadvantage -- but these=
=20
odds are downright rosy compared with the amount of funding that was=20
recently poured into local Iowa elections to defeat muni-broadband=20
referenda. Check out these stats. Mediacom Communications Corporation: 1)=
=20
Gave $805,000 in cash to the anti-muni campaign. 2) Donated 16,366=20
commercials on 25 cable television networks (yes, 16,366 commercials on 25=
=20
cable television networks -- take a moment to let that sink in). 3) The=20
campaign spent $921,870 on consultants, opinion polls, telemarketing,=20
direct mail pieces and media production and advertising. Qwest=20
Communications Incorporated, on the other hand, "spent $94,494 to oppose=20
the city-owned telecommunications systems." All of this for 26 towns,=20
villages, and cities -- a tiny geographic area of Iowa. Perhaps this'll=20
help bring this into perspective -- the math works out to roughly "$4.75=20
for every man, woman and child in those mostly small towns. By comparison,=
=20
Rep. Jim Nussle spent $3.34 for every man, woman and child in Iowa=92s 1st=
=20
Congressional District to win reelection last year." That's right, per=20
capita spending was greater to defeat municipal broadband than to elect the=
=20
area's congressional representative. Perhaps the best synopsis of the=20
problem was stated by Scott Sackville of Hampton, Iowa, "'The sheer number=
=20
of dollars being pumped into Hampton, Iowa, you wonder where the money's=20
coming from,' he said. 'It's coming from our telephone and cable rates. If=
=20
they'd put that back into services and running their businesses, then they=
=20
wouldn't have anything to worry about.'" With these huge expenditures being=
=20
spent by telecommunications giants to defeat local referenda, it begs the=
=20
question, "If their services and prices are so great, why are the telecom=
=20
incumbents so scared?"
http://www.saschameinrath.com/

HOLY TOLEDO! A SURPRISING LEADER IN WIRELESS ACCESS
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Mark Sappenfield]
Toledo -- home of the Mud hens, the Rockets and Tony Packo's -- is=20
America's fifth most "unwired" city, above the likes of Denver and Boston,=
=20
according to a survey by Intel. In any public library, at the airport, and=
=20
even at the minor-league ballpark, for instance, Toledoans can surf the=20
Web, wire-free. It is a curious distinction for a city still struggling to=
=20
become more than a memorial to America's vanishing industrial heartland.=20
Yet experts suggest that Toledo's ascendance is but one part of a broader=
=20
revolution that could bridge the "digital divide." Since the dawn of=20
wireless Internet, futurists have dreamed of the day that the technology=20
would spread Web access to people and places left behind - from inner=20
cities to the remotest hinterland. Today, "things are starting to tip,"=20
says Paul Butcher of Intel, a top chipmaker. Read more about the success,=
=20
but also the tribulations of Glass City at the URL below.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1109/p01s04-ussc.html

PROMOTING BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACROSS AMERICA
[SOURCE: National Telecommunications and Information Administration]
National Telecommunications and Information Administration head Michael=20
Gallagher spoke on Monday to the Western Telecommunications Alliance
2005 Annual Conference. He came to three conclusions: 1) President Bush has=
=20
a vision for making advanced technologies available to all Americans -- by=
=20
creating the economic and regulatory environment to enhance competition and=
=20
promote innovation. 2) The telecom sector is growing dynamically, and many=
=20
new technologies -- particularly wireless in nature -- show great potential=
=20
for expanding broadband deployment in rural communities. 3) President=20
Bush=92s goal will ensure that all Americans have the personal and economic=
=20
benefits of high-speed Internet applications and services.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2005/MGallagher_WTA_11072005.htm

CLOSING GROKSTER
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Closing Grokster will have almost no effect on the swelling=20
number of people -- more than nine million including Peter -- who use=20
peer-to-peer networks. The recording industry thinks of file-sharing as a=
=20
simple matter of theft that explains the declining sales of music CD's. But=
=20
there's a lot more wrong with the industry than that, and the fight over=20
file-sharing will find a surer resolution in the marketplace, broadly=20
defined, than in Congress or the courts. We are witnessing a collision=20
between huge increases in the power to move information, and an equally=20
enormous surge in the effort to lock it up. The Internet threatens the=20
legal constraints that govern that fight. The natural reaction is to try to=
=20
tighten those constraints by suing violators, writing new laws or creating=
=20
new copy-protection systems. That's not the hard part. The hard part is=20
finding a new, appropriate balance between innovation and the rights of=20
intellectual property holders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/opinion/09wed4.ready.html
(requires registration)
* Hollywood breathes sigh of relief over Grokster's demise, settlement
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Matthai Chakko Kuruvila]
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/13111968.htm

GROKSTER, RIP
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Editorial]
[Commentary] The official end of Grokster won't solve all of the Internet's=
=20
intellectual property issues, but it's a crucial step toward protecting=20
innovation in the digital economy. The biggest winners are song writers and=
=20
listeners. The "free-Internet" crowd continues to argue that copyright laws=
=20
don't apply to the Web. Yet the fact remains that artists create their=20
works in expectation of being compensated, whatever the means of delivery.=
=20
If music lovers want to benefit from all this fabulous innovation, they'll=
=20
have to pay. To the extent that Grokster's demise will encourage them to do=
=20
so, the music lives on.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113150481716591920.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
nion
(requires subscription)
* Hollywood breathes sigh of relief over Grokster's demise, settlement
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Matthai Chakko Kuruvila]
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/13111968.htm

QUICKLY

LPFM UPDATE
On behalf of Prometheus Radio Project, the Media Access Project filed=20
comments urging the FCC to act expeditiously to open the long delayed LPFM=
=20
window for 10-watt LPFM stations and open a new window for 100-watt station=
s.
http://www.mediaaccess.org/Prometheus%20FM%20Table%20Replies.pdf

DIGITAL RADIO STILL HARD TO HEAR
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: John Borland]
More than 570 stations around the county are now broadcasting in the new=20
digital radio format, but only a relative handful of actual digital radio=
=20
receivers have been sold, or are even available to consumers who want to=20
buy them. With competitive pressures growing from satellite radio and the=
=20
iPod, radio companies had hoped that this year's shopping season would=20
finally see a significant number of high definition radios hitting the=20
market. But several major manufacturers have pushed back releases until=20
2006, likely dooming these hopes.
http://news.com.com/Digital+radio+still+hard+to+hear/2100-1025_3-5940548...
ml?tag=3Dnefd.lede

FTC TO ANALYZE FOOD MARKETING TO KIDS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
A bill introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), an outspoken critic of TV=20
marketing to kids, made it into the Senate Commerce, Justice and State=20
Appropriations bill that passed out of a House/Senate conference committee=
=20
last week. The bill would require the Federal Trade Commission to report to=
=20
Congress on "food industry marketing activities and expenditures targeted=
=20
toward children and adolescents" by July 1, 2006. The report would include=
=20
commercials on TV and radio (including product placement), print, in-store=
=20
marketing, Internet, movies, and video games. Responding to the provision,=
=20
Association of National Advertisers Executive VP for Government Relations=
=20
Dan Jaffe said that the industry has done its own analysis, and it doesn't=
=20
link food marketers with obesity.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6282397?display=3DBreaking+Ne...
referral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

WIRELESS CONTENT GUIDELINES
[SOURCE: CTIA- The Wireless Association press release]
US wireless phone carriers unveiled the =93Wireless Content Guidelines,=94 =
a=20
voluntary pledge by the industry to proactively provide tools and controls=
=20
to manage wireless content offered by the carriers or available via=20
Internet-enabled wireless devices. A significant component of the=20
Guidelines is the Content Classification Standard which divides content=20
that subscribers may access within their carrier=92s managed content portal=
=20
into two categories: Generally Accessible Carrier Content and Restricted=20
Carrier Content. The content will be categorized using criteria based on=20
the movie, television, music and games rating systems that are already=20
familiar to consumers. The Wireless Content Guidelines create standards=20
intended to ensure carrier-offered content either excludes or requires=20
parent or guardian permission to access any material inappropriate for=20
subscribers under 18. A second phase of the industry=92s Wireless Content=
=20
Guidelines initiative will be for carriers to develop and implement=20
Internet Content Access Control technologies that will enable wireless=20
account holders to block access to the Internet entirely or provide tools=
=20
to block access to specific websites that consumers might consider=20
inappropriate. Carriers will independently implement Internet access=20
control tools.
http://www.ctia.org/news_media/press/body.cfm?record_id=3D1565
* Reaction from FCC Commissioner Jonathan: "This industry effort should=20
really help families who rely on their cellphones but do not want their=20
children inadvertently exposed to adult material."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262135A1.doc
* Reaction from FCC Commissioner Abernathy: "The industry has responded=20
swiftly to consumer concerns by giving parents the information and tools=20
they need to safeguard their children's interests."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262139A1.doc
* Carriers Adopt Content Rating for Cellphones
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/technology/09wireless.html?pagewanted=...
ll

US VOICE IN ARABIA
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] There is a certain piquancy when an organization designed to=
=20
burnish an image of a client, or in this case a country, ends up with its=
=20
own image tarnished. So it is with al-Hurra, the Arabic language television=
=20
network which President George W. Bush set up last year to "cut through the=
=20
hateful barriers of propaganda" and redress what he perceived to be the=20
anti-American bias of established Arab broadcasters such as al-Jazeera. For=
=20
the state department and Congress are now both investigating al-Hurra for=
=20
possible financial irregularities, which must add to existing doubts about=
=20
the rationale of the whole exercise.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a5c1d966-50c7-11da-bbd7-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)

INTELLIGENCE CENTER IS CREATED FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Scott Shane]
Top intelligence officials announced on Tuesday the creation of a new=20
agency, the Open Source Center, to gather and analyze information from the=
=20
Web, broadcasts, newspapers and other unclassified sources around the=20
world. The premise of the center, announced as part of the restructuring of=
=20
the nation's intelligence agencies by the director of national=20
intelligence, John D. Negroponte, is that some critical information to=20
understand threats to national security requires neither spies nor=20
satellites to collect. The new center will absorb the Foreign Broadcast=20
Information Service, a branch of the Central Intelligence Agency that has=
=20
already expanded beyond its historical duty of translating foreign=20
broadcasts and periodicals to study Web sites and more obscure sources like=
=20
T-shirt slogans in countries of interest. The director of the old service,=
=20
known as FBIS, Douglas J. Naquin, is director of the Open Source Center.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/politics/09center.html?pagewanted=3Dall
(requires registration)

BELLSOUTH RINGS UP WINS IN BIG EASY
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Leslie Cauley]
A puff piece on BellSouth's efforts to get the phone system up and running=
=20
again in New Orleans. Hurdles include a workforce that is dealing with its=
=20
own homelessness, downed power lines, police blockades, traffic snarls and=
=20
the local government, which hasn't decided if whole neighborhoods will be=
=20
rebuilt. More than two months after the storm, only 45% of New Orleans'=20
900,000 phone lines are working.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20051109/bellsouth09.art.htm

CRITICS SHOULD GRASP GOOGLE PROJECTS BEFORE BLASTING THEM
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Kevin Maney]
[Commentary] The misinformation and misguided attempts to stop Google Print=
=20
and Google Print Library are mind-blowing. The Authors Guild and the=20
Association of American Publishers (AAP) have sued to shut them down.=20
Writers have been pounding out angry op-ed pieces.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20051109/maney09.art.htm

HEAR NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL, DO EVIL
[SOURCE: Media Is Plural, AUTHOR: Rory O'Connor]
[Commentary] A look at why Reporters Without Borders worked with a group of=
=20
investment managers -- instead of journalists -- to press Internet=20
behemoths like Cisco and Yahoo to monitor their operations in =93repressive=
=20
regime countries=94 like China. =93You know how the media works,=94 said Ju=
lien=20
Pain, head of the Internet Freedom Desk of Reporters Without Borders, =93Th=
ey=20
forget about things after a few days.=94
http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/

CALL FOR NOMINEES: COMMUNICATIONS POLICY RESEARCH AWARD
The Donald McGannon Communication Research Center announces its 2005 Award=
=20
for Social and Ethical Relevance in Communications Policy Research.=20
Nominees should consist of book-length research published in 2005 that=20
addresses or informs issues of communications policy. The author(s) of the=
=20
winning book will be awarded $2,000. Nominations should consist of a cover=
=20
letter briefly summarizing the book=92s research focus and findings, along=
=20
with three copies of the book. Self-nominations are welcome. Edited volumes=
=20
are not eligible for consideration. Deadline for consideration is January=
=20
15th, 2006.
Please send 2005 nominations to:
Communications Policy Research Award
Donald McGannon Communication Research Center
Fordham University
441 E. Fordham Rd.
Bronx, NY 10458
Contact: Dr. James Capo capo( at )fordham.edu

FEDERALIST PRINCIPLES NEEDED IN TELECOM REFORM
[SOURCE: Progress & Freedom press release]
Kent Lassman, Research Fellow and Director of the Digital Policy Network at=
=20
The Progress & Freedom Foundation, presents several arguments for why state=
=20
and federal roles should be altered in future telecommunications reform.
http://www.pff.org/news/news/2005/110705federalistprinciples.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------