April 2006

To view Benton's Headlines feed in your RSS=20
Aggregator, paste=20
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dtaxonomy/term/6/all/feed into your read=
er.

LEGISLATION
Barton Shielding Telecom Bill From House Judiciary Panel
Out of the Telechasm

INTERNET/BROADBAND
Don't Undercut Internet Access
The Corporate Toll on the Internet
The Future of the Internet

PUBLIC MEDIA
PBS Considers Putting Shows Online
Why We Need a Corporation for Public Gaming
Harold Feld at Summit for Community Wireless
Filmmakers and Others Petition Against Smithsonian's Showtime Deal
The Future of Journalism as Told by Hilaire Belloc in 1918

QUICKLY -- AT&T-backed study finds TV competition=20
could save consumers big bucks; Wealthy go=20
without Verizon; Cable Says It's Time For Per-Sub=20
Satellite Fee; A Map of Television Spectrum=20
Utilization; Media groups blast Brussels over=20
directive; Populist news sites give readers what=20
they want; Video Games Get TV Showcase; Look --=20
Up in the Sky! Product Placement!

LEGISLATION

BARTON SHIELDING TELECOM BILL FROM HOUSE JUDICIARY PANEL
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
House Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) is=20
doing everything possible to avoid having his=20
panel's telecommunications legislation referred=20
to the Judiciary Committee. Last week Rep Barton=20
and Telecommunications and the Internet=20
Subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) were=20
cautious about accepting amendments that might=20
give Judiciary jurisdiction over their bill. Bell=20
telephone companies could enter the market for=20
cable television on a national scale under the=20
measure. Their bill also addresses equal=20
treatment for Internet content and network=20
telecom interconnections. It is unclear whether=20
Judiciary will seek to obtain a referral of the=20
measure. Amendments scrutinized closely for=20
possibly opening the door to Judiciary=20
jurisdiction included those dealing with consumer=20
protection rules for national video-franchise=20
holders, child pornography over high-speed=20
Internet networks and access to cable=20
programming. The bill also does not include what=20
some regard as a crucial component on Internet=20
telephony. That issue concerns liability for=20
emergency 911 dispatchers, and it lies within=20
Judiciary jurisdiction, experts said.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-LLUW1145304458011.html

OUT OF THE TELECHASM
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Ten years after Congress declared it=20
was "deregulating" the telecom industry, our=20
Representatives and Senators are at it again.=20
Both Houses of Congress are drawing up=20
legislation to address some of the absurdities=20
that resulted from the last effort at reform. The=20
WSJ would like to report this as a hopeful sign.=20
But this is Congress, and aside from one noble if=20
likely doomed effort by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)=20
, the prospects don't look bright. DeMint has=20
drafted legislation to sweep away conflicting and=20
nonsensical regulatory regimes and treat telecom=20
the way it ought to be treated -- like any other=20
competitive industry. It says, in effect, that=20
telecom companies should be regulated on the=20
basis of fair competition standards used=20
everywhere else in the economy. Rather than=20
trying to legislate competitive outcomes, as the=20
1996 Telecommunications Act did, Congress could=20
allow open-field running save for anyone who=20
violates antitrust rules. For years, regulators=20
and "consumer advocates" have argued that telecom=20
is "too important" to be left to market forces.=20
Something like the opposite is closer to the=20
truth. In a digital age, telecom is too important=20
for policy to hinge on arbitrary distinctions=20
between "information" and "telecommunications,"=20
or to be held hostage to thousands of=20
rent-seeking municipal agencies. It's time for a=20
rethink, and the more fundamental, the better.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114531696529928112.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
nion
(requires subscription)

INTERNET/BROADBAND

DON'T UNDERCUT INTERNET ACCESS
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle 4/17, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] The wide and unbounded Internet=20
could soon be fenced in by cable and phone firms.=20
Higher prices and less choice may lie ahead under=20
a misguided bill moving forward in Congress. A=20
House committee dumped a plan to enforce network=20
neutrality, a clunky term for an important=20
concept. The phrase stands for an original ideal=20
of Internet -- equal access and no hidden charges=20
to climb aboard. down at the consumer level, the=20
impact could be different. Customers could face=20
one set of services offered by a cable or phone=20
company -- or a higher-priced list of=20
alternatives from outsiders. If Yahoo was part of=20
the standard-priced bundle, would you pay more=20
for Google? It would be a two-tier world, not the=20
even-up access that the Internet offers now. New=20
upstarts would have a hard time cracking the=20
lineup, while the familiar names stayed on top.=20
The Internet isn't served by layers of government=20
regulation. But it shouldn't become a captive of=20
one industry. Net neutrality should be a guiding=20
principle to guarantee open use.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2006...
/17/EDGNSGUA4F1.DTL

THE CORPORATE TOLL ON THE INTERNET
[SOURCE: Salon, AUTHOR: Farhad Manjoo]
AT&T is back, it's big, and according to consumer=20
advocates and some of the nation's largest=20
technology companies, AT&T wants to take over the=20
Internet. To understand why critics worry about=20
the future of the Internet in the absence of what=20
they call network neutrality, it helps to look at=20
the underlying philosophy of the ubiquitous=20
network. Engineers are fond of describing the=20
Internet as a "dumb network," a designation=20
that's meant to be a compliment. Unlike other=20
large communications systems -- phone or cable=20
networks -- the Internet was designed without a=20
specific application in mind. The engineers who=20
built the network didn't really know what it=20
would be used for, so they kept it profoundly=20
simple, making sure that the network performed=20
very few functions of its own. Where other=20
networks use a kind of "intelligence" to define=20
what is and what isn't allowed on a system, the=20
various machines that make up the Internet don't=20
usually examine or act upon data; they just push=20
it where it needs to go. Today's largest=20
broadband firms, though, aren't accustomed to=20
running dumb networks built on the end-to-end=20
principle. At firms like AT&T and Verizon, both=20
of which have roots in the monopolistic old AT&T,=20
there's now an effort afoot to reengineer parts=20
of the Internet by introducing more intelligence=20
to manage and control data. Expensive as they may=20
be, the new network schemes will allow for myriad=20
moneymaking opportunities. The new technology=20
will allow AT&T and company to reserve the fast=20
lane for the highest bidders. And AT&T says such a plan is perfectly fair.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2006/04/17/toll/index_np.html?source=3...
lon.rss
(requires attention to advertising)

THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET
[SOURCE: RedHerring 4/10]
If pundits are right, in 10 years=92 time the=20
barriers between our bodies and the Internet will=20
blur as will those between the real world and=20
virtual reality. Today=92s devices will disappear.=20
Electronics will instead be embedded in our=20
environment, woven into our clothing, and written=20
directly to our retinas from eyeglasses and=20
contact lenses, predicts inventor, entrepreneur,=20
author, and futurist Ray Kurzweil. =93Devices will=20
no longer be spokes on the Internet -- they will=20
be the nodes themselves,=94 he says. Everything=20
from the family fridge to the office coffee pot=20
-- as well as heating, cooling, and security=20
systems -- will be managed through the Internet,=20
possibly using souped-up mobile phones doubling=20
as universal remote controls, says Google=92s Vint=20
Cerf. By 2016, he predicts the online population=20
of 1 billion will treble, and a huge portion will=20
be mobile. And by then, the Internet will become=20
so pervasive that connecting to it will no longer=20
be a conscious act. Bandwidth access of 100=20
megabits per second or more will become the norm.=20
=93It is probably a safe bet that everyone will be=20
able to have a full-motion, high-definition=20
real-time link to anyone,=94 says Bram Cohen,=20
creator of the popular peer-to-peer program=20
BitTorrent. Once that happens, =93the concept of=20
who is online and who is offline will melt away,=94=20
says Bradley Horowitz, Yahoo=92s director of media and desktop search.
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=3D16391&hed=3DThe+Future+of+the...
ternet

PUBLIC MEDIA

PBS CONSIDERS PUTTING MORE SHOWS ONLINE
[SOURCE: Reuters]
The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is=20
considering making its television shows available=20
on the Internet or portable devices like MP3=20
players, says new CEO Paula Kerger. PBS is also=20
weighing whether to partner with technology=20
companies, in the same way that Walt Disney Co.=20
has teamed up with Apple Computer Inc. to sell=20
episodes of some of its ABC television network=20
series on iTunes for downloading to iPods. "My=20
goal in running PBS is that no matter what choice=20
consumers in the digital age decide to do ... we=20
recognize the need to make content available to=20
any of those platforms, and right now we're=20
moving in that direction," Kerger said at a=20
luncheon sponsored by the Media Institute. She=20
also pointed to PBS's archive of educational=20
shows like "Nature," "Frontline" and other=20
documentaries as a possible resource that could=20
be accessed "anytime, anywhere."
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DinternetNews&storyID=
=3D2006-04-17T212554Z_01_N17280309_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-PBS.xml
* PBS President Cautions On Ad Expansion
With some noncom stations taking ads on their Web=20
sites, Kerger said that the Internet might give=20
stations "the ability to experiment a little more=20
on the advertising side than we do with=20
broadcast," but she said that her concern is that=20
"if we go to far, we become commercial=20
television. Part of the reason that public=20
television exists is to do the things that are=20
not sustainable in a corporate environment."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6325496?display=3DBreaking+News

WHY WE NEED A CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC GAMING
[SOURCE: Serious Games Source, AUTHOR: David=20
Rejeski, Woodrow Wilson International Center]
[Commentary] The best kept secret in the world of=20
computer and video games is the rise of a=20
movement of gamers dedicated to applying games to=20
serious challenges such as education, training,=20
medical treatment, or better government. The=20
Serious Games movement is in many ways today=92s=20
equivalent of yesterday=92s advocates for=20
non-commercial, educational TV, who knew that the=20
potential of the medium was unrealized and went=20
far beyond pure entertainment. With small amounts=20
of foundation money, and a lot of sweat equity=20
and ingenuity, advocates of serious games are=20
getting products built and used. The interactive=20
nature of games, their ability to present complex=20
and dynamic information, and, increasingly, to=20
allow thousands of people to meet in=20
sophisticated virtual environments means games=20
can accomplish what TV never could in terms of=20
addressing educational and social challenges.=20
However, serious games, like serious TV, are=20
likely to remain a sidebar in the history of mass=20
media. Non-commercial television floundered,=20
despite millions of dollars of investment by the=20
Ford Foundation, until the government stepped in=20
and created a viable and long-lasting=20
alternative. With similar vision and foresight,=20
and a relatively small amount of funding, this=20
could happen with video and computer games. A=20
Corporation for Public Gaming (CPG) could be=20
established that would operate on a model similar=20
to its broadcasting equivalent, providing grants=20
to develop a diversity of games for the public=20
good. Like CPB, the goal of the CPG would be to=20
provide high-quality games, which =93inform,=20
enlighten and enrich the public.=94 A $15 million=20
annual investment would be made for a three-year=20
period with a review conducted at the end of year=20
three followed by recommendations for=20
continuance, modification, or termination of the=20
program. Grants would be made available to=20
qualified non-profits who could partner with=20
commercial game developers, universities,=20
museums, schools, or government entities. All=20
grants would require a 15 percent set aside to=20
support a rigorous evaluation of the game=92s=20
impact. A portion of the overall funding would go=20
to universities to conduct research on how to=20
improve the content, impact, and evaluation of=20
such games. An alternative model would be to=20
support serious games within the existing=20
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, by=20
increasing the appropriation and changing the=20
allocation formula from the 75-25 percent split=20
between television and radio to one that=20
reflected the additional funding for games.=20
Granted, it would take vision and courage to=20
create such an entity, especially today when the=20
concept of public broadcasting has become=20
politicized and compromised. But without such a=20
commitment to serious games, we may find that in=20
twenty years we have managed to create another=20
=93vast wasteland=94 out of a promising new mass medium.
http://seriousgamessource.com/features/feature_041106_public_gaming.html

HAROLD FELD'S SPEECH AT THE SECOND NATIONAL=20
SUMMIT FOR COMMUNITY WIRELESS NETWORKS
[SOURCE: Harold Feld]
These are the stakes for our species. My=20
seven-and-a-half year old son. Will he grow up to=20
believe that he has power to change the world? Or=20
will he believe what the media and the culture=20
tell him: =91You are helpless. To believe you can=20
change the world is na=EFve and stupid. Being=20
cynical is smart and sophisticated.=92 It would be=20
nice if I could blame this on some conspiracy of=20
corporate conservatives. But it has penetrated=20
throughout the supposedly liberal progressive=20
bleeding heart of Hollywood. We used to make=20
movies like =93Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.=94=20
Stories about how people who cared about seeing=20
justice done would go to Washington on behalf of=20
their communities and work for the common good.=20
But when we talk, we can make a difference. We=20
must tell our stories. We have so many incredibly=20
powerful stories. We must find ways to tell them=20
that reach out and make sense to the audience.=20
When I talk about the importance of community=20
wireless and spectrum reform, sometimes I talk=20
about creating jobs. Sometimes I talk about=20
=91digital inclusion,=92 or education, or becoming=20
the owners of our own media. Sometimes I talk=20
about Katrina and Rita and how this stuff saves=20
lives and builds infrastructure. Sometimes I just=20
talk about how cool the applications are and what=20
you can do with them. Each of these stories is a=20
true story. They are NOT spin. But I don't tell=20
people stories they aren't ready to hear or that=20
they won't understand. Most of all, I don't feel=20
the need to tell the whole story at once. I work=20
hard not to let our opponents =93pigeon hole=94 me=20
and force me into some preset position. Because=20
if people think they understand you, they stop=20
listening =AD we=92re all busy after all. If I am=20
=93just=94 about digital inclusion or =93just=94 about=20
competition, I just become part of the background=20
noise of talking head chatter. I need to have a=20
dozen different stories in a dozen different=20
ways. We must always remember that wireless is a=20
tool, not a goal in itself. What we do has value=20
because it changes peoples lives for the better.=20
Wireless doesn't create jobs or educational=20
opportunities on its own. It gives people a new=20
way to get information, to create new kinds of=20
speech or applications, and share these=20
applications with others. We can't just =93unwire=94=20
neighborhoods or throw up nodes or write code. We=20
need to reach out to the communities around us,=20
show them what they can do, give them what they=20
need, then let go when they take it in completely different directions.
http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/481

FILMMAKERS AND OTHERS PETITION AGAINST SMITHSONIAN'S SHOWTIME DEAL
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Lorne Manly]
As the recent coupling between the Smithsonian=20
Institution and Showtime Networks continues to=20
roil the documentary film world, more than 215=20
filmmakers, television executives and academics=20
have signed a letter demanding that the=20
Smithsonian, a publicly financed museum, not only=20
reveal financial details of the joint venture but=20
also abandon it. The signers of the letter,=20
delivered yesterday to a Smithsonian official,=20
include the filmmakers Michael Moore ("Fahrenheit=20
9/11"), R. J. Cutler ("The War Room") and Alex=20
Gibney ("Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room");=20
the actress and writer Anna Deavere Smith=20
("Twilight: Los Angeles"); the law professor=20
Lawrence Lessig; and Jacoba Atlas, a senior PBS=20
executive. The uproar was set off last month when=20
Showtime and the Smithsonian announced the=20
creation of Smithsonian Networks, a joint venture=20
for original television programming on=20
scientific, cultural and historical subjects=20
whose first service would be an on-demand cable=20
channel beginning this December. As part of the=20
deal, Smithsonian Networks was to get the right=20
of first refusal on commercial documentaries that=20
relied significantly on the museum's archives,=20
curators or scientists. The underfinanced=20
Smithsonian has argued that while the agreement=20
might restrict some commercial filmmakers from=20
selling their handiwork elsewhere, it would=20
affect only a limited number of projects. A=20
Smithsonian official has said that incidental use=20
-- a lone interview with a staff member or a few=20
minutes displaying the riches of the Smithsonian=20
collections =97 would not mandate offering that=20
particular project to Showtime. But the idea of a=20
public institution's granting preferential=20
treatment to a commercial entity has alarmed many=20
in the documentary and academic worlds, who worry=20
that the venture will discourage independent=20
filmmakers from taking their projects to other=20
outlets or from putting their work on the Internet on a noncommercial basis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/arts/television/18smit.html
(requires registration)
* See a draft of the letter at: http://public.resource.org/sunshine_letter.=
pdf
* Smithsonian Asked to End Showtime Deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR200604...
1820.html

THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM AS TOLD BY HILAIRE BELLOC IN 1918
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Verlyn Klinkenborg]
[Commentary] "The Free Press" is an extended=20
essay examining the history of what Hilaire=20
Belloc calls the "Official Press" in England and=20
the emergence of a rival "Free Press" in the form=20
of small, often short-lived journals. The=20
Official Press, Belloc argues, is centralized and=20
Capitalist, and its owners are "the true=20
governing power in the political machinery of the=20
State, superior to the officials in the State,=20
nominating ministers and dismissing them,=20
imposing policies, and, in general, usurping=20
sovereignty -- all this secretly and without=20
responsibility." The result "is that the mass of=20
Englishmen have ceased to obtain, or even to=20
expect, information upon the way they are=20
governed." It is a delicate historical task to=20
transplant Belloc's argument from his era to our=20
own. Perhaps nothing else distances his essay so=20
much as his assumption that major newspapers=20
actually shaped the political power of the nation=20
-- that politicians governed at the sufferance of=20
newspaper owners. "The Free Press" is still worth=20
reading, for it describes, with some important=20
adjustments, the evolving relationship between=20
political bloggers and the mainstream media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/opinion/18tue4.html
(requires registration)

QUICKLY

TV COMPETITION COULD SAVE CONSUMERS BIG BUCKS
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Marguerite Reardon]
Yale Braunstein, professor in the School of=20
Information at UC Berkeley, found in a study=20
focused on the California cable television market=20
that prices dropped 15 percent to 22 percent when=20
cable companies competed with another wireline=20
paid-TV provider, such as a telephone company.=20
Braunstein's report, which was commissioned and=20
paid for by AT&T, is one of the first studies to=20
quantify how much consumers could save if phone=20
companies competed directly against cable operators in the video market.
http://news.com.com/TV+competition+could+save+consumers+big+bucks/2100-1...
_3-6062015.html?tag=3Dnefd.top

WEALTHY GO WITHOUT VERIZON
[SOURCE: Fort Wayne Journal Gazette 4/16, AUTHOR: Dan Stockman]
A year ago, Verizon officials appeared before=20
Fort Wayne City Council to reassure them the=20
southeast side of the city would not be last to=20
get the phone company=92s super-fast fiber-optic=20
network connections. Fears were the southeast=20
side, which has many of the city=92s poorer=20
neighborhoods and many minorities, would be=20
forced to the back of the technological bus as=20
Verizon wired wealthier, whiter areas. Indeed, it=20
is not poorer neighborhoods that have been left=20
out of what Verizon calls its =93life-changing=94=20
Internet service, but some of the city=92s=20
wealthiest. =93We are being left behind,=94 says Fort=20
Wayner Bill Haynie, who lives in a neighborhood=20
outside of the fiber-optic network. =93The=20
consumer=92s sitting there going, I feel like I=20
live in Communist Cuba -- I'm forced to take what they give me.=94
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/14355394.htm

NCTA SAYS IT'S TIME FOR PER-SUB SAT FEE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The National Cable Television Association thinks=20
it is paying more than its fair share in FCC=20
regulatory fees, and wants the commission to make=20
satellite operators assume more of the load. The=20
FCC last month sought comment on whether it=20
should change the fee-collection process. The FCC=20
plans to collect $288,771,000 in regulatory fees=20
from users including broadcasters and cable in=20
2006. The commission is considering making DBS=20
pay the same per-sub regulatory fee as cable.=20
Satellite companies now pay a per-license fee.=20
The Cable industry asked for the same change in=20
2005 and the FCC declined to make it, saying "no=20
change was warranted." NCTA argues that the=20
latest regulatory fee raises its per-sub fee from=20
72 cents to 77 cents, or 7%, while the=20
per-license fee for DBS will drop by 3.6%.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6325295?display=3DBreaking+News

RADIO FREE AMERICA -- A MAP OF TELEVISION SPECTRUM UTILIZATION
[SOURCE: Max Vilimpoc]
http://vilimpoc.org/research/rfa/

MEDIA GROUPS BLAST BRUSSELS OVER DIRECTIVE
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson]
An alliance of old and new media companies=20
including Cisco Systems, ITV, Vodafone and Yahoo=20
will on Tuesday launch an attack on the European=20
Commission=92s proposals for regulating video on=20
demand, mobile television and other emerging=20
media formats. The group argues that proposed=20
changes to the Television Without Frontiers=20
directive would hold back innovation in new=20
media, divert investment away from the European=20
Union, and fail to protect consumers by=20
undermining existing regulations. The initiative=20
-- led by Intellect, the UK trade association for=20
the information technology industry, and the=20
Broadband Stakeholder Group, a UK government=20
advisory group -- represents the most vocal=20
industry attack yet on the directive and=20
highlights the challenge of regulating the=20
fast-changing media environment. The legislation,=20
championed by commissioner Viviane Reding,=20
proposes extending the regulation of =93linear=94=20
scheduled television broadcasts to =93non-linear=94=20
new media services such as on-demand and interactive video content.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/fe41a6e6-ce3c-11da-a032-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)

POPULIST NEWS SITES GIVE READERS WHAT THEY WANT
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Verne Kopytoff]
A new generation of Web sites relies on the=20
masses to help decide which headlines are at the=20
top of the page. The idea is to give visitors=20
what they want to read with better precision.=20
Increasingly, Web sites are asking visitors to=20
vote on individual stories or measuring online=20
buzz around a topic, and then organizing their=20
pages accordingly. Dozens of Web sites, many=20
founded within the past year, make up this=20
so-called "social news" universe. They range from=20
hobbyists to small businesses funded with millions of dollars venture capit=
al.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2006...
/17/BUG78I9FMQ1.DTL&type=3Dtech

VIDEO GAMES GET TV SHOWCASE
[SOURCE: Associated Press]
Professional video gaming is set to debut on=20
cable television this year, potentially paving=20
the way for the reigning game players to become=20
as familiar to American households as the faces=20
of Johnny Chan or Annie Duke in televised poker.=20
Major League Gaming, the world's largest=20
organized video game league, on Monday announced=20
a programming deal in which USA Network will air=20
seven one-hour episodes in the fall featuring the pro circuit.
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-games18apr18,1,597906...
tory?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business
(requires registration)

LOOK -- UP IN THE SKY! PRODUCT PLACEMENT!
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brian Steinberg brian.steinberg( at )wsj.c=
om]
Product placement has become commonplace in=20
movies and TV shows. Now it's coming to comic=20
books -- in part because the industry's two=20
giants, DC and Marvel, are promoting some of=20
their titles as places to reach one of Madison=20
Avenue's most elusive audiences: guys in their=20
20s. Notoriously hard to reach, young adult males=20
are known to be wary of traditional sales=20
pitches, especially ones that get in the way of their entertainment.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114532350031828284.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace
(requires subscription)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online=20
news summary service provided by the Benton=20
Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday=20
through Friday, this service provides updates on=20
important industry developments, policy issues,=20
and other related news events. While the=20
summaries are factually accurate, their often=20
informal tone does not always represent the tone=20
of the original articles. Headlines are compiled=20
by Kevin Taglang headlines( at )benton.org -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------