May 2006

** The Senate Commerce Committee is meeting today=20
to begin consideration of Chairman Stevens'=20
Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband=20
Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686). A summary of=20
key provisions in the bill is available at=20
http://www.benton.org/benton_files/S2686summaryMay17.doc=20
For additional information, see http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dnode/21=
73 **

LEGISLATION/NET NEUTRALITY
Fighting for an Open Society
Hanging up on the Competition
Judiciary Unlikely to Get a Crack at Barton's Telecom Bill
Don't Be Duped By Net Neutrality, Say Senators
The Web's Worst New Idea
Saving Internet Equality
Groups warn Congress of dangers of COPE bill on the Internet
Will The Senate Save the Internet?
Would Senate Bill Liberate Cable Sports but Squash the Internet?
Christian Coalition Announces Support for 'Net Neutrality'
Hardware firms oppose Net neutrality laws

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program
U.S. Focused on Obtaining Long-Distance Phone Data, Company Officials Indi=
cate
SPJ Decries Reports of Monitoring Reporters
Public Interest Groups Oppose Bill to Authorize Surveillance
Judge denies AT&T request for closed hearing
EPIC Urges FCC Investigation of Phone Companies in NSA Program
Why the NSA phone analysis is OK

BROADCASTING
Frist Hoping to Pass Brownback Bill
NTIA Fashioning $1.5B Box Program
Balancing old, new media proves tough for TV execs
=09
INTERNET
Midcontinent Official Faults RUS Program
Rural Broadband Loans Reason for Economic Improvement
Tate at Accenture Global Convergence Forum 2006
BT to create wireless cities
To the edge of cyberspace

QUICKLY -- Why Media Matters; State Attorneys=20
General Demand Stricter Limits on Alcohol Ads;=20
Local Carriers, Bell Firms Battle Over Network=20
Access; First responders in a jam?; Writers Want=20
Say in Product Integration Deals; Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report

LEGISLATION/NET NEUTRALITY

FIGHTING FOR AN OPEN SOCIETY
[SOURCE: Center for Creative Voices in Media]
[Commentary] An open society requires open access=20
to media, so that media's role in our democracy=20
as a check and balance on government is not=20
compromised. Many will recall in 2003 that Big=20
Media gave the White House a free pass about=20
Weapons of Mass Destruction and other=20
justifications for the Iraq war, for which some=20
like the NY Times and Wash Post have subsequently=20
apologized, and for which our society is now=20
paying a heavy price. As many observed at that=20
time, the media was too concentrated to=20
adequately act as a check and balance on=20
government power. And was it coincidence that at=20
this very same time, these media congloms were=20
also seeking favorable government "de-regulation"=20
to permit more huge media mergers and=20
concentrated ownership, constricting even more=20
open access to the media? Big Media congloms=20
have little motivation to bite the government=20
hand that feeds them or vigorously act as a check=20
and balance on governmental overreaching. Now=20
that its government-licensed TV stations are=20
worth more than its newspaper, would the=20
Washington Post work so doggedly to uncover=20
Watergate today? Perhaps. But how hard would=20
military contractor and TV station/network owner=20
General Electric try on its NBC network(s)? Or=20
Disney owned ABC? Or Murdoch controlled=20
Fox? This week, AT&T and Verizon have been=20
implicated as partners with the government in the=20
huge secret illegal "data mining" of millions of=20
Americans' phone records. Coincidentally, these=20
two Big Telcos are now beseeching the government=20
for the unfettered power to restrict access to=20
Internet web sites and discriminate against=20
Internet content. Should the Internet be under=20
the thumb of these new giant would-be=20
media/Internet gatekeepers who so easily,=20
apparently, violate the law when the government=20
comes knocking? If they are claiming a role as=20
Internet/media gatekeepers, perhaps they need to=20
study the meaning of "check and balance" and the=20
role of the media in our Constitutional=20
system? As if we needed yet another reason that=20
the Internet must remain open to all, without=20
discrimination, these Big Telcos and the=20
government just handed us the biggest one of all:=20
protecting free speech in an open and democratic society.
http://creativevoices.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/fighting_for_an.html

HANGING UP ON COMPETITION
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Mayor Martin Chavez, Albuquerque]
[Comentary] Like many elected officials, the=20
nation's mayors have taken a renewed interest in=20
telecommunications as the so-called video reform=20
legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton,=20
R-Texas, and urged by the nation's telephone=20
companies, is considered in the U.S. Congress.=20
And no wonder. The legislation will likely=20
determine the extent to which our constituents=20
will ever benefit from broadband competition. The=20
nation's mayors generally tend to agree on three=20
central principles that should govern any reform=20
legislation: It should promote competition; it=20
should make sure that consumers, not special=20
interests, benefit; and it should ensure that the=20
market and not the government will pick and=20
choose winners. Rather than removing real=20
barriers to entry, the telephone companies really=20
want legislation to end the role of local=20
government in protecting consumers, and to repeal=20
the existing antidiscrimination rules that=20
require all cable operators--big and small--to=20
provide the latest digital broadband services to=20
every neighborhood in their footprint.=20
Legislators should take pause. The telephone=20
companies are the biggest telecom companies in=20
the world and have been built with massive=20
government subsidies and ratepayer-guaranteed=20
rates of return. Every time they get so-called=20
regulatory relief, prices rise, competition=20
suffers and promises about deploying broadband=20
networks are broken. Now they want Congress to=20
give them a permission slip to exclude many, if=20
not most, of those ratepayers from upgrades to=20
their publicly subsidized networks. If there were=20
serious barriers to entry into the cable=20
industry, I would be the first to champion=20
reform. But the alleged obstacles are really=20
trumped up stalking horses intended to help sneak=20
through a repeal of a law that would otherwise=20
ensure that all neighborhoods benefit from=20
broadband competition. Elected officials know=20
that public policy decisions involve trade-offs.=20
In making those decisions, we need to ask=20
ourselves whether the decisions will benefit=20
consumers or large corporate interests. Video=20
franchise legislation seeks to solve competition=20
problems that don't really exist while repealing=20
a system of law that's critical to equal=20
opportunity and to our economic productivity. And=20
that's a very unwise trade-off.
http://news.com.com/Hanging+up+on+the+competition/2010-1037_3-6071741.ht...
tag=3Dhtml.alert

JUDICIARY UNLIKELY TO GET A CRACK AT BARTON'S TELECOM BILL, SOURCES SAY
[SOURCE: Congressional Quarterly, AUTHOR: Joelle Tessler]
The House Judiciary Committee appears unlikely to=20
get a chance to mark up telecommunications=20
legislation approved by the Commerce Committee=20
late last month, Capitol Hill sources said=20
Wednesday. The House parliamentarian is likely to=20
deny Judiciary's request for a referral of the=20
bill, according to the sources, who said they=20
expected an announcement soon. If the=20
parliamentarian in fact refuses to send the=20
measure to Judiciary for a second review, it=20
would be a defeat for Chairman F. James=20
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI), who has insisted that=20
his panel's oversight of business competition and=20
antitrust issues entitles it to a crack at the=20
telecom measure. If Judiciary cannot mark up that=20
bill, Rep Sensenbrenner and three of his=20
committee's key Democrats are expected to=20
introduce their own legislation to address one of=20
the most contentious parts of Commerce Committee=20
Chairman Joe Barton's bill -- the so-called net=20
neutrality provision, which is intended to=20
prevent phone and cable companies from abusing=20
their power over the nation's broadband networks.=20
Rep Sensenbrenner is working with Judiciary=20
Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers Jr. of=20
Michigan, as well as Democrats Rick Boucher of=20
Virginia and Zoe Lofgren of California, to draft=20
a stand-alone bill that would create strong net=20
neutrality restrictions. Rep Lofgren represents=20
part of Silicon Valley, home to many of the=20
companies leading the push for such protections.
http://www.cq.com
(article not available online)
* House Judiciary Preps Neutrality Bill
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6335841.html?display=3DBreaking+News

DON'T BE DUPED BY NET NEUTRALITY, SAY SENATORS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Senators Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) and Jim DeMint=20
(R-SC) have sent a letter to their colleagues=20
warning them not to be "duped" by advocates of=20
network neutrality. They argue that networks need=20
to be free of regulation to spend the billions it=20
will take to develop next-generation broadband,=20
including technologies that help parents control=20
their children's surfing. Sen Brownback prefers=20
the heavy hand of regulation fall on=20
broadcasters, sponsoring the Senate bill upping FCC indecency fines.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335577?display=3DBreaking+News
See also --
* Choosing sides on Net neutrality
http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-netneut...
ity_17bus.ART.State.Edition1.1878bcb2.html
(requires registration)

THE WEB'S WORST NEW IDEA
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] If ever there was a solution in=20
search of a problem, "Net neutrality" is it.=20
Sometime recently, someone got up on the wrong=20
side of bed and decided that the freedom that has=20
been the hallmark of the Internet now threatens=20
to destroy it. Suddenly the Internet service=20
providers, which you always thought were there to=20
let you get onto the Net, are going to keep you=20
off it unless the government imposes new laws and=20
regulations. Enter Net neutrality, which has so=20
far found its only official expression in a=20
nonbinding policy statement issued by the FCC=20
last year. The FCC statement says, "consumers are=20
entitled" (our emphasis) to the "content,"=20
"applications" and "devices" of their choice on=20
the Internet. They are also "entitled to=20
competition among network providers, application=20
and service providers, and content providers."=20
All the recent scare-mongering about the coming=20
ruination of the Internet is cloaked in rhetoric=20
about how recent court rulings and regulatory=20
actions by the FCC have undermined certain=20
"protections." This is mostly bluster. Companies=20
like AOL did not migrate from a "walled garden"=20
to a more-open, Internet-centric model because of=20
mandates from Washington but because the=20
alternative was extinction. Given the impulse on=20
the left to regulate anything that moves, perhaps=20
the real surprise here is that it's taken this=20
long for someone to seriously suggest the Net=20
will wither in the absence of a federal=20
regulatory apparatus. "Don't ruin the Internet"=20
is a slogan with a lot of merit. But it comes=20
with a modern corollary, which is "Don't regulate what isn't broken."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114791513048756153.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
nion
(requires subscription)

SAVING INTERNET EQUALITY
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News 5/16, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] The future of the Internet is in the=20
hands of Congress, and Congress is about to mess=20
it up. The choice facing lawmakers is stark: keep=20
the Internet as a decentralized network that no=20
single company controls and where all users and=20
all Web sites are treated equally; or hand=20
control over it to an oligopoly of cable and=20
telephone companies. Shamefully, Congress appears=20
inclined to do the latter by refusing to adopt=20
so-called 'network neutrality' rules. It's a=20
choice that would be disastrous for Internet=20
users, for Internet companies and for innovation=20
itself. Outside the San Francisco Bay Area, few=20
lawmakers seem to understand that by not enacting=20
network neutrality legislation, they'd be=20
subverting the basic principles that have made=20
the Internet into such a powerful force for=20
economic growth. Perhaps, it's because they've=20
been worn down by armies of lobbyists from the=20
telephone and cable industries. It's time for=20
online users everywhere -- those who search on=20
Google, download songs from Apple, buy books from=20
Amazon, run businesses on eBay, make phone calls=20
on Skype or simply read e-mail and surf the Web=20
-- to let them know the Internet is too valuable=20
to be sold off to special interests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14594744.htm

GROUPS WARN CONGRESS OF DANGERS OF COPE BILL ON INTERNET
[SOURCE: Common Cause]
Twenty-seven public interest, consumer, religious=20
and media reform organizations today called on=20
Congress to defeat the Communications=20
Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of=20
2006 (COPE, H.R. 5252), the first overhaul of our=20
nation=92s telecommunications laws since the 1996=20
Telecommunications Act. The House of=20
Representatives is expected to vote on the COPE=20
bill within the next few weeks. Groups signing on=20
to the letter to House members include Common=20
Cause, the Alliance for Community Media, FAIR:=20
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Office of=20
Communication of the United Church of Christ,=20
Inc., MoveOn.org Civic Action, and U.S. PIRG. The=20
COPE bill would =93harm the public=92s access to=20
information, will stymie innovation on the=20
Internet, and deepen the digital divide,=94 the=20
groups said in the letter. The letter also raised=20
concerns over the federalization of the video=20
franchising process and the lack of local=20
consumer protections. COPE=92s weak =93network=20
neutrality=94 provisions have come under intense=20
fire of late. Network neutrality is the=20
principle that Internet users should be able to=20
access any web content they want, post their own=20
content, and use any applications they choose,=20
without restrictions or limitations imposed by=20
their Internet service providers (ISPs). ISPs=20
like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast have announced=20
plans to create a tiered structure on the=20
Internet, where their own content (and the=20
content of companies that pay them large fees)=20
will travel in a =93fast lane=94 while the rest of=20
the web would be relegated to a =93slow=20
lane.=94 Nonprofit groups have expressed concern=20
that citizen advocacy and access to diverse=20
viewpoints would be harmed under such a system,=20
and claim that COPE does not adequately protect network neutrality.
* Who Should Control the Internet?
mms://216.145.9.14/InsideScoop/InsideScoop5-15-06.mp3

WILL THE SENATE SAVE THE INTERNET?
[SOURCE: TPM Cafe, AUTHOR: Art Brodsky]
[Commentary] The Senate gets into the Net=20
Neutrality debate in earnest on Thursday, and a=20
number of senators are going to have to figure=20
out how to square two of their fundamental=20
beliefs. While we usually focus on the Democrats,=20
it's the Republicans who have a very interesting=20
story going on. On one hand, a number of Senators=20
on the Commerce Committee, which holds the first=20
of two hearings on telecom legislation (S 2686)=20
tomorrow, are generally pro-tech. They come out=20
in favor of innovation, sponsor tech-friendly=20
bills and involve themselves in the issues.=20
Committee Republicans George Allen of Virginia,=20
John Sununu and Conrad Burns of Montana fall into=20
that camp. At the same time, however, these (and=20
other) members of the Committee don't like the=20
government to intrude on the tech sector -- even=20
if a policy like Net Neutrality would help keep=20
the Internet open and innovative. The Bell's=20
message of "Don't Regulate the Internet" provokes=20
a visceral reaction among conservatives even if=20
a) No one is talking about regulating the=20
Internet. We are talking about regulating the=20
Bells, and it' not the same. and b) The result of=20
keeping the government out and allowing AT&T and=20
friends for the first time to take over control=20
of transmission of Internet content would destroy=20
what those senators have worked to=20
promote. There may be some Republicans who want=20
to do the right thing. Sen. Olympia Snowe of=20
Maine is one. She circulated a fine draft bill a=20
few weeks ago that came out strongly for the=20
non-discrimination policy needed for a Neutral=20
Internet. But the bill, on which she's working=20
with Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North=20
Dakota, hasn't been introduced, leading some to=20
suggest Snowe is under assault from the Bells to weaken her language.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29945

WOULD SENATE BILL LIBERATE CABLE SPORTS BUT SQUASH THE INTERNET
[SOURCE: Philadelphia Inquirer, AUTHOR: Jeff Gelles]
[Commentary] It=92s almost an understatement to say=20
that after a decade of revolutionary change in=20
telecom technology and business strategies, it's=20
time to address serious concerns that have arisen=20
since Congress passed its even-more-ambitious=20
predecessor, the Telecommunications Act of 1996.=20
Sen Stevens deserves credit for taking a stab at=20
some of the biggest, including the Baby Bells'=20
push for permission to bypass local-franchising=20
processes so they can more quickly introduce=20
pay-television service that competes with cable=20
and satellite companies. The vast majority of=20
cable customers would welcome any competition,=20
but the changes =97 the first subject at tomorrow's=20
hearing -- are bitterly and vocally opposed by=20
the cable industry and its allies.Other big=20
devils lurk in the bill's details. Here=92s a quick=20
preview on two key issues that aren't on=20
tomorrow's agenda and that may get short shrift=20
unless consumers speak up. 1) Net neutrality.=20
Despite the urgings of Democrats such as Sen.=20
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, the bill=92s co-sponsor=20
and the committee=92s minority chairman, S. 2686=20
does nothing to guarantee against what many=20
consumer advocates and technologists fear: that=20
the broadband Internet will be duopolized by Big=20
Cable and Big Telecom, which will charge high=20
prices and squeeze out competition from companies=20
that want to provide alternative services over=20
networks that the cable and phone companies=20
control. 2) Comcast=92s stranglehold over most of=20
Philadelphia=92s local sports telecasts, which it=20
has achieved because of a 1992 law that allows it=20
to withhold Comcast SportsNet from competitors --=20
a tactic Comcast hasn't employed elsewhere but=20
that other cable companies are starting to use.=20
Stevens=92 bill, as drafted, would stop new=20
attempts to monopolize local sports and hinder=20
competition by relying on what's known as the=20
=93terrestrial loophole.=94 But it would grandfather=20
in contracts in place before July 1, 2003, and is=20
at best ambiguous about what happens when they run out.
http://consumerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/would-senate-bill-liberate-cab...
html

CHRISTIAN COALITION ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR 'NET NEUTRALITY'
[SOURCE: Christian Coalition press release]
Today, Christian Coalition of America announced=20
its support for the effort to amend pending=20
telecom legislation in Congress in order to=20
prevent the large phone and cable companies from=20
discriminating against web sites. Roberta Combs,=20
the President of Christian Coalition of America=20
said, "Christian Coalition is joining a broad=20
array of organizations, representing consumers,=20
businesses, and all ends of the political=20
spectrum. The Coalition is committed to working=20
on behalf of our supporters to ensure that the=20
Internet remains the free marketplace of ideas,=20
products and services that it is today." The=20
Internet is what it is today because every site,=20
no matter how obscure, is just as accessible to=20
every individual as any name brand site with a=20
multi-million dollar budget. Every American has=20
the opportunity to create their own site and say=20
what they want to the entire world and have the=20
same access to the world as anyone else. And=20
consumers have the ability to connect with them.=20
Mrs. Combs added, "Under the new rules, there is=20
nothing to stop the cable and phone companies=20
from not allowing consumers to have access to=20
speech that they don't support. What if a cable=20
company with a pro-choice Board of Directors=20
decides that it doesn't like a pro-life=20
organization using its high-speed network to=20
encourage pro-life activities? Under the new=20
rules, they could slow down the pro-life web=20
site, harming their ability to communicate with=20
other pro-lifers - and it would be legal. We urge=20
Congress to move aggressively to save the=20
Internet -- and allow ideas rather than money to=20
control what Americans can access on the World=20
Wide Web. We urge all Americans to contact their=20
Congressmen and Senators and tell them to save=20
the Internet and to support 'Net Neutrality'."
http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?srch=3Dnet+neutrality
* WWJD About Network Neutrality?
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6335842.html?display=3DBreaking+News

HARDWARE FIRMS OPPOSE NET NEUTRALITY LAWS
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
The political debate in Washington over the=20
concept known as Net neutrality just became a lot=20
more complicated. Some of the largest hardware=20
makers in the world, including 3M, Cisco, Corning=20
and Qualcomm, sent a letter to Congress on=20
Wednesday firmly opposing new laws mandating Net=20
neutrality. Companies including 3M, Cisco,=20
Corning and Qualcomm sent a letter to Congress on=20
Wednesday firmly opposing new laws mandating Net=20
neutrality--the concept that broadband providers=20
must never favor some Web sites or Internet=20
services over others. That view directly=20
conflicts with what many software and Internet=20
companies have been saying for the last few=20
months. Led by Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft and=20
Yahoo, those companies have been spending=20
millions of dollars to lobby for stiff new laws=20
prohibiting broadband providers from rolling out=20
two-tier networks. "It is premature to attempt to=20
enact some sort of network neutrality principles=20
into law now," says the letter, which was signed=20
by 34 companies and sent to House Majority Leader=20
Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.=20
"Legislating in the absence of real understanding=20
of the issue risks both solving the wrong problem=20
and hobbling the rapidly developing new=20
technologies and business models of the Internet=20
with rigid, potentially stultifying rules." The=20
letter even goes so far as to applaud a committee=20
vote in the House of Representatives on April 26,=20
in which Net neutrality proponents--largely=20
Democrats--lost by a wide margin. "We are pleased=20
that the committee rejected attempts to add=20
so-called 'network neutrality' provisions to the=20
bill," it says. Even though many of the letter's=20
signers are suppliers to telecommunications=20
companies, it still is likely to help stall efforts to advance Net neutrali=
ty
http://news.com.com/Hardware+firms+oppose+Net+neutrality+laws/2100-1028_...
073629.html?tag=3Dnefd.top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

LEGAL LOOPHOLE EMERGES IN NSA SPY PROGRAM
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh ]
An AT&T attorney indicated in federal court on=20
Wednesday that the Bush administration provided=20
legal authorization for the telecommunications=20
company to open its network to the National=20
Security Agency. Federal law may "authorize and=20
in some cases require telecommunications=20
companies to furnish information" to the=20
executive branch, said Bradford Berenson, who was=20
associate White House counsel when President Bush=20
authorized the NSA surveillance program in late=20
2001 and is now a partner at the Sidley Austin=20
law firm in Washington, D.C. Far from being=20
complicit in an illegal spying scheme, Berenson=20
said, "AT&T is essentially an innocent=20
bystander." AT&T may be referring to an obscure=20
section of federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2511, which=20
permits a telecommunications company to provide=20
"information" and "facilities" to the federal=20
government as long as the attorney general=20
authorizes it. The authorization must come in the=20
form of "certification in writing by...the=20
Attorney General of the United States that no=20
warrant or court order is required by law."=20
Information that is not yet public "would be=20
exculpatory and would show AT&T's conduct in the=20
best possible light," Berenson said. But he did=20
not acknowledge any details about the company's=20
alleged participation in the NSA's surveillance=20
program, which has ignited an ongoing debate on=20
Capitol Hill and led to this class-action lawsuit=20
being filed in January by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
http://news.com.com/Legal+loophole+emerges+in+NSA+spy+program/2100-1028_...
073600.html?tag=3Dhtml.alert

US FOCUSED ON OBTAINING LONG-DISTANCE PHONE DATA, COMPANY OFFICIALS INDICATE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Matt Richtel & Ken Belson]
Government efforts to obtain data from the=20
nation's largest phone companies for a national=20
security database appear to have focused on=20
long-distance carriers, not local ones,=20
statements by company officials indicate. The=20
statements have come in the week since USA Today=20
reported that the National Security Agency had=20
collected local and long-distance phone records=20
on tens of millions of Americans from Verizon,=20
BellSouth and AT&T in the aftermath of the Sept.=20
11 attacks. The responses by the companies=20
suggest that the agency, in an effort to find=20
patterns that could identify terrorists, sought=20
records from major long-distance providers like=20
the former MCI (now part of Verizon), AT&T and=20
Qwest, but did not ask for data on local calls.=20
Technical experts said long-distance calling=20
records could yield information not only on the=20
companies' own long-distance customers, but also=20
on traffic that the carriers connect on behalf of=20
others, including some calls placed on cellphones=20
or on Internet voice connections. But they added=20
that unless the data was supplemented,=20
considerable holes would remain, since cell=20
companies route their long-distance calls over a=20
variety of networks, as do providers of Internet=20
phone service. For example, "They wouldn't have=20
much information about cellular calls, whether=20
cellular-to-cellular or cellular-to-wired calls,"=20
said Andrew Odlyzko, the director of the Digital=20
Technology Center at the University of Minnesota=20
and former researcher at AT&T Labs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/us/18call.html
(requires registration)
* Wider Briefing for Lawmakers on Spy Efforts
Classified briefings provided to lawmakers on=20
Wednesday about a controversial domestic=20
eavesdropping program have smoothed what might=20
have been a contentious path toward confirmation=20
for Gen. Michael V. Hayden as director of the=20
Central Intelligence Agency. The closed-door=20
sessions in the Capitol, on the eve of a=20
confirmation hearing for General Hayden, were the=20
first time the White House had provided briefings=20
to the full Senate and House Intelligence=20
Committees about the program. As director of the=20
National Security Agency until last year, General=20
Hayden oversaw the surveillance program, whose=20
existence came to light in December.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/washington/18nsa.html
(requires registration)
* Lawmakers Briefed on NSA Program
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114791215208456083.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one
* List describes 30 briefings on NSA work
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060518/a_nsa18.art.htm
* Oversight? What oversight? Congress briefed, then gagged
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060518/edit18.art.htm

SPJ DECRIES REPORTS OF MONITORING REPORTERS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
David Carlson, president of the Society of=20
Professional Journalists, said it would be=20
"outrageous" and a "sad commentary on the state=20
of our nation" if the government actually tracked=20
the phone numbers called by journalists. "Having=20
the intelligence community monitoring Americans'=20
phone calls is not just outrageous," said Carlson=20
in a statement. "It's frightening. When the=20
government of any nation surveils its own=20
citizens, freedom is in peril," he said.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335824?display=3DBreaking+News

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS OPPOSE BILL TO AUTHORIZE SURVEILLANCE
CDT and a broad coalition of public interest=20
groups today called on Senate Judiciary Committee=20
Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) to delay action on=20
a measure that would effectively legalize the=20
National Security Agency's domestic spying=20
program and give the President unfettered=20
discretion to conduct warrantless surveillance of=20
Americans. In a letter sent earlier today, CDT=20
joined with the American Civil Liberties Union,=20
Center for American Progress, Center for National=20
Security Studies, Liberty Coalition, Open Society=20
Policy Center and Patriots to Restore Checks and=20
Balances in urging Specter to refrain from taking=20
any legislative action until Congress is able to=20
conduct a full inquiry into the scope of the=20
administration's surveillance programs. May 17, 2006
Joint Letter [PDF], May 17, 2006:=20
http://www.cdt.org/security/20060517specter.pdf
More on NSA Surveillance: http://www.cdt.org/security/nsa

JUDGE DENIES AT&T REQUEST FOR CLOSED HEARING
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker rejected a=20
request from AT&T on Wednesday to kick the public=20
out of a hearing in a lawsuit alleging the=20
telecommunications company illegally cooperated=20
with the National Security Agency.
http://news.com.com/Judge+denies+AT38T+request+for+closed+hearing/2100-7...
_3-6073480.html?tag=3Dhtml.alert
* Judge Denies AT&T Request to Discuss Closing Courtroom
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_05.php#004671
* Judge issues split decision in AT& T privacy lawsuit
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20060518/1b_lawsuit18.art.htm
* AT& T Papers Won't Be Released
A federal judge yesterday rejected a privacy=20
group's request to release documents that it=20
claims show AT&T Inc. helped the National=20
Security Agency spy on Americans by providing access to customers' phone ca=
lls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR200605...
2165.html

EPIC URGES FCC INVESTIGATION OF PHONE COMPANIES IN NSA PROGRAM
[SOURCE: Electronic Privacy Information Center]
EPIC filed a complaint with the Federal=20
Communications Commission urging the agency to=20
investigate claims that telephone companies=20
shared private customer data with the National=20
Security Agency as part of a domestic=20
surveillance or data mining program.=20
Telecommunications carriers are required by law=20
to keep customer records confidential. "If=20
telecommunication carriers disclosed customer=20
information to the NSA in the manner described in=20
press reports, then violations of section 222 of=20
the Communications Act have occurred," the letter said.
http://www.epic.org/

WHY THE NSA PHONE ANALYSIS OS OK
[SOURCE: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, AUTHOR: Richard A. Falkenrath]
[Commentary] On Thursday, USA Today reported that=20
three U.S. telecommunications companies have been=20
voluntarily providing the National Security=20
Agency with anonymized domestic telephone records=20
-- that is, records stripped of names and place=20
of residence. If true, the architect of this=20
program deserves our thanks and probably a medal.=20
That architect was presumably Gen. Michael=20
Hayden, former director of the NSA and President=20
Bush's nominee to become director of the Central=20
Intelligence Agency. Large-scale analysis of=20
anonymized data can pinpoint individuals -- at=20
home or abroad -- who warrant more intrusive=20
investigative or intelligence techniques, subject=20
to all safeguards normally associated with those techniques.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06137/690628-109.stm

BROADCASTING

FRIST HOPING TO PASS BROWNBACK BILL
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: ]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is=20
seeking approval to bring to the Senate floor a=20
bill that would impose a tenfold increase in=20
radio- and TV-indecency fines handed down by the=20
Federal Communications Commission, informed=20
Senate sources said Wednesday. Sen Frist, the=20
sources said, is attempting the difficult task of=20
obtaining unanimous consent to discharge the bill=20
from the Senate Commerce Committee and bring it=20
up for a full Senate vote. It would take just one=20
senator to defeat Frist=92s plan. Sen Frist is=20
expected to make his move Wednesday night, but he has not guaranteed it.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6335801.html?display=3DBreaking+News
* Frist, Brownback Fast-Track Smut Bill
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335822?display=3DBreaking+News

NTIA FASHIONING $1.5B BOX PROGRAM
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
The U.S. Commerce Department is several weeks=20
away from soliciting public comment on a $1.5=20
billion subsidy program to help consumers=20
purchase converter boxes to run analog-television=20
sets after the cessation of analog-TV=20
broadcasting in early 2009. Congress has ordered=20
Commerce=92s National Telecommunications and=20
Information Administration to supervise the=20
program, but lawmakers gave NTIA director John=20
Kneuer just a few instructions on how to allocate=20
the money and how to limit ways consumer may use=20
it. As a result, the NTIA is planning to issue=20
=93by late July=94 a notice of inquiry that would=20
seek public input on program details, NTIA=20
spokesman Ranjit De Silva said Monday. The Office=20
of Management and Budget has the document under review, he added.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6335607.html?display=3DBreaking+News

BALANCING OLD, NEW MEDIA PROVES TOUGH FOR TV EXECS
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Paul Thomasch]
As networks woo advertisers, the lifeblood of the=20
television industry, to commit billions of=20
dollars to their prime-time schedules, they must=20
also prove they are in touch with new generations=20
of consumers who want their entertainment on a=20
variety of other technologies like Web sites,=20
iPods and cell phones. At the same time, some of=20
those technologies are siphoning off ad dollars=20
that previously went into television advertising.=20
This year's upfront revenue for the major=20
networks should wind up about flat or slightly=20
lower from $9.1 billion in 2005, when upfront=20
spending fell 2 percent from the previous as a=20
result of competition from new media.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DtelevisionNews&sto...
D=3D2006-05-17T184739Z_01_N17241646_RTRIDST_0_TELEVISION-MEDIA-ADVERTISING-=
DC.XML
* Advertisers make pitch for more online options linked to TV
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20060518/4b_abc_test18.art.htm

INTERNET

MIDCONTINENT OFFICIAL FAULTS RUS PROGRAM
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
The federal government=92s broadband-loan program=20
should focus spending on areas that don't have=20
high-speed-Internet access, a small-cable-company=20
executive told a Senate Committee Wednesday. The=20
program =93is largely being used to subsidize=20
competition in areas where one and, in many=20
cases, multiple providers of broadband exist,=94=20
said Tom Simmons, vice president of public policy=20
for Midcontinent Communications, in prepared=20
testimony. Simmons argued that the loan program=92s=20
failure to concentrate on unserved markets=20
distorts competition and runs the risk that the=20
federal government won't be repaid because loan=20
recipients=92 consumer penetration likely won't=20
meet expectations. =93Subsidizing competition is a=20
waste of scarce resources that should be targeted=20
to areas where a market-based solution has not=20
developed,=94 he said. Midcontinent provides voice,=20
video and data services to 200,000 subscribers in=20
200 communities scattered around three Great=20
Plains states. Appearing before the Senate=20
Agriculture Committee, Simmons called for changes=20
to the U.S. Agriculture Department=92s Rural=20
Development Broadband Loan program, created in=20
2002 under federal farm legislation.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6335814.html?display=3DBreaking+News

RURAL BROADBAND LOAN PROGRAM REASON FOR ECONOMIC=20
IMPROVEMENT AND COMMUNITY GROWTH
[SOURCE: National Telecommunications Cooperative Association press release]
On behalf of the National Telecommunications=20
Cooperative Association (NTCA), Larry Sevier, CEO=20
of Rural Telephone Service Company and Nex-Tech=20
(Lenora, Kan.) testified Wednesday before the=20
Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry=20
Committee during its hearing on the Rural=20
Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program.=20
The broadband programs are administered by the=20
United States Department of Agriculture=92s Rural=20
Utilities Service (RUS). In his testimony, Sevier=20
told the committee that Rural Telephone -- which=20
has used the traditional RUS Loan Program for=20
more than 50 years -- received a loan in 2000=20
under the RUS Broadband Pilot Program which=20
enabled it to bring broadband service to two=20
communities in its service area. Nex-Tech has=20
since received three additional loans totaling=20
$15 million to bring broadband service to=20
additional communities. Sevier also testified=20
that Rural Telephone will be using the=20
traditional RUS Program to fund a planned=20
acquisition of 12 additional exchanges and an=20
accompanying rebuild of fiber, to provide=20
high-speed Internet service to communities in=20
these areas that currently have limited or no=20
Internet service at all. Sevier concluded his=20
testimony by noting that while he is aware of=20
some criticism of the program, the program=20
operates at a relatively inexpensive cost and=20
little risk to the taxpayer, and that the=20
benefits of economic stability and community=20
growth which result from the programs make the=20
risk of providing service worthwhile.
http://www.ntca.org/ka/ka-3.cfm?content_item_id=3D4311&folder_id=3D644

REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER TATE AT ACCENTURE GLOBAL CONVERGENCE FORUM 2006
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
I join my colleague, Chairman Martin, in working=20
to remove - to the greatest extent possible -=20
unnecessary regulatory burdens. Legacy economic=20
regulations often make no sense in this digital=20
world and may serve to impede broadband=20
deployment. You may have heard me say that I=20
believe in regulatory humility. The government=20
needs to be a referee in the communications=20
industry, making sure that everyone plays by fair=20
and consistent rules; it should not be a coach,=20
telling everyone how to play the game. A light=20
regulatory touch promotes investment and=20
encourages competition, and competition is what=20
drives you and industry to create the next great=20
invention or service and keeps those inventions=20
affordable for consumers. Regulation needs to=20
ensure that competition is fair and not favor one=20
technology over another; but it also needs to let=20
companies take into account their own business=20
plans and the economic realities they face and=20
then let them go to work! Our end game should be=20
to put in place a regulatory framework that=20
creates opportunities for the private sector to=20
invest; so innovators can innovate. In his State=20
of the Union address, President Bush announced=20
the "American Competitiveness Initiative." The=20
FCC will play an important role in that=20
initiative by creating an environment that=20
encourages and supports innovation. The National=20
Telecommunications and Information Administration=20
recently found that the FCC Triennial Review=20
Order loosening regulation resulted in more than=20
$6 billion in investment by Verizon and $5=20
billion in investment by AT&T. I hope that I can=20
help make every FCC decision a catalyst for=20
investment. The outcome in a competitive market=20
is certainly not predictable, and it is not=20
always pretty. Sometimes companies=20
fail. Sometimes companies have faulty business=20
plans. But in the end, I believe that creating=20
an environment where private investors can=20
compete is the best way to develop a vibrant ICT=20
sector and to bring vital services to=20
consumers. As we heard today, consumers are the=20
new innovators and forcing all of us to rethink core strategies.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265423A1.doc

BT TO CREATE WIRELESS CITIES
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: David Meyer ]
BT has begun rolling out wireless infrastructure=20
in six U.K. cities as the first phase of a wider=20
project, the company said on Wednesday. The=20
cities taking part so far are Birmingham,=20
Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Liverpool and=20
Westminster. Cardiff and Westminster represent=20
extensions of the plan, as smaller Wi-Fi networks=20
already exist in both places. Ultimately, BT=20
plans to deliver high-speed Wi-Fi to 12 cities.=20
The first phase of the "12 Wireless Cities" plan=20
is expected to be up and running by February=20
2007. BT hasn't yet said which other six cities=20
will be involved. BT will be working with Intel=20
on the project. It claims that the wireless=20
networks will support a "wide range of devices,"=20
including the forthcoming Wi-Fi version of its=20
own Fusion handset, and a similar product=20
currently being developed for corporate customers.
http://news.com.com/BT+to+create+wireless+cities/2100-7351_3-6073335.htm...
ag=3Dnefd.top

TO THE EDGE OF CYBERSPACE
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] We're running out of cyberspace.=20
It's not going to affect any of us -- consumers,=20
businesses and countries -- just yet. We've=20
probably got another six years. But with 60=20
percent of the 4.3 billion standard Internet=20
Protocol (IP) addresses already spoken for, and=20
other nations, especially in Asia, hopping on a=20
new and more powerful IP bandwagon to stay=20
connected, America needs to move -- fast.=20
Fortunately, we just need to add new capability=20
to our existing system, not dismantle the whole=20
thing. Masud said that most costs will come from=20
training engineers and IT types to use a new=20
protocol, not from the technology itself. So=20
let's start the process by encouraging service=20
providers to add IPv6 capabilities. Then we'd=20
better hit the books, pronto. If you missed it=20
the first time -- the Internet has a way of moving really, really fast.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2006...
/17/EDGDOIJKNP1.DTL

QUICKLY

WHY MEDIA MATTERS
[SOURCE: Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ press relea=
se]
The Office of Communication of the United Church=20
of Christ, Inc. (OC, Inc.) is releasing a unique=20
brochure series designed to help educate the=20
public about the role media play in shaping=20
current issues. The "Why Media Matters" series of=20
seven brochures is aimed at community groups,=20
organizers and advocates, and show why organizing=20
around media is essential in achieving broader=20
social justice goals. "What makes the series=20
unique is that each brochure starts with issues=20
that different groups care about," said Robert=20
Chase, executive director of OC, Inc. "The=20
brochures apply media policy and organizing=20
principles to pressing social concerns, rather=20
than treating the media itself as the issue." The=20
seven brochures target: community organizers;=20
parents, youth and families; environmental=20
advocates; independent artists; immigrant=20
communities; faith groups; and labor activists.=20
They contain engaging stories from diverse ethnic=20
voices within the constituent groups themselves.=20
Each brochure also includes practical next steps=20
and points readers to existing sources and organizing tools.
http://news.ucc.org/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D554&...
mid=3D1

STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL DEMAND STRICTER LIMITS ON ALCOHOL ADS
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Ira Teinowitz]
Unleashing a fresh attack on alcoholic beverage=20
advertising, 20 state attorneys general are=20
urging the Federal Trade Commission to limit=20
alcohol ads to media in which only 15% of the=20
audience is aged 12 to 20. Industry marketing=20
codes in recent years have limited ads to media=20
in which no more than 30% of the audience is=20
under 21. But in a filing with the FTC, the=20
attorneys general said current voluntary limits=20
don't go far enough and that new ones should be mandatory.
http://adage.com/article?article_id=3D109252

LOCAL CARRIERS, BELL FIRMS BATTLE OVER NETWORK ACCESS
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: David Hatch]
A U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C.,=20
heard oral arguments in a case involving the=20
FCC's rules for providing local competitors of=20
the former regional Bell operating companies with=20
access to Bell networks at reduced rates. At=20
issue are the agency's "unbundling" rules, which=20
are designed to foster competition by making the=20
telecom facilities of dominant firms available to=20
smaller providers at wholesale discounts. During=20
Monday's action, attorneys representing the Bells=20
and their competitors sparred over whether the=20
FCC has gone too far in mandating discounts for=20
competitive local exchange carriers, or CLECs.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-BDPX1147896529576.html

FIRST RESPONDERS IN A JAM?
[SOURCE: Government Computer News, AUTHOR: William Jackson]
A Florida company that sells cellular-jamming=20
equipment is challenging Federal Communications=20
Commission rules prohibiting state and local=20
governments from using the devices. State and=20
local police departments are interested in the=20
technology as a way to block the remote=20
detonation of bombs and to control communications=20
in sensitive areas. Unfortunately, the Federal=20
Communications Act of 1934 and FCC rules make=20
such jamming devices illegal except for feds.
http://www.gcn.com/print/25_12/40734-1.html?CMP=3DOTC-RSS

CHOICES NARROW FOR COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS CONSULTANTS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Talent unions and the ad industry have picked=20
nine outside consultants to bid on a project that=20
they hope will ease their negotiations on new=20
commercial talent contracts in the digital age.=20
They are looking to commission a joint study of=20
various compensation models for commercials that=20
are appearing on TV and radio as well as new=20
platforms like cellphones and the Internet. The=20
SAG/AFTRA talent contracts expire Oct. 29, 2006.=20
The RFP is something of a tall order, saying the=20
study must be "comprehensive" and take into=20
account the interests of performers, unions,=20
advertisers, agencies, production companies,=20
talent and payroll services, casting directors=20
and "cost consultants." The finalists were picked=20
by the ad industry's Joint Policy Committee, SAG=20
and AFTRA, and drawn from an initial pool of=20
respondents to a request for qualifications issued in March.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335780.html?display=3DBreaki...
News
* Writers Want Say in Product Integration Deals
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=3D10025
(requires free registration)
* AFTRA press release
http://www.aftra.org/press/pr_2006_17_05_jtstatement_rfp.html
* TV Trend Triggers Concerns
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-wga18may18,1,2934472....
ry?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business

INTERNET FILTERS: A PUBLIC POLICY REPORT
[SOURCE: Free Expression Policy Project, AUTHOR: ]
The =93Children=92s Internet Protection Act=94 (CIPA),=20
requires filters in most schools and libraries =AD=20
for adults and minors alike. A new report from=20
the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan=20
Center for Justice explains the effects of CIPA=20
and then analyzes nearly 100 tests and studies=20
that demonstrate how filters operate as=20
censorship tools. "Internet Filters: A Public=20
Policy Report=94 concludes: =93Although some may say=20
that the debate is over and that filters are now=20
a fact of life, it is never too late to rethink=20
bad policy choices.=94 The report is available at=20
www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------