May 2006

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing=20
today -- Reconsidering Our Communications Laws:=20
Ensuring Competition and Innovation. For this and=20
other upcoming upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org

NET NEUTRALITY
Ill Effects of a Gated Cyber World
Fair Use and Network Neutrality
Keeping Net Neutral Benefits TV Industry=09
Eyes on the =92Net
Net Neutrality's End Might Turn a Buck
Hillary, for Net Neutrality, Fires Up the Right

INTERNET
Free Broadband for the Masses
A cure to citywide Wi-Fi woes?
Commerce Dept's role in Internet oversight scrutinized
New Domain Name -- .Mobi -- Could Spur Wireless Web
Internet searches: Librarians do it better

TELEVISION/BROADCASTING
Commerce Shapes $1.5B Plan for Digital TV Aid
FCC Misses Advisory Committee Deadline on
Public Interest Obligation Matters
Marketers Tune In to the Tween Set
Radio filth starts in corporate suites
Koppel Proposes New Journalism Job
Nets Take Family-Friendly Fivepack

TELECOM LEGISLATION
Retrans: A Big Hole in Telecom Bill
Opponents: BellSouth is seeking unfair deal (Louisiana)
New Jersey Assembly Passes Franchise Reform

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Official Secrets
Divisive In Any Language
AT&T Gave NSA Web-Data Access, Privacy Suit Says

QUICKLY -- A Deal Is Said to Be Close for 2=20
Papers in Philadelphia; Adapt or Die; Pole-Fee=20
Flap Could Prove Costly to Cable; MAP Asks FCC To=20
Brand Rural Programmer; Cheap Telephone Calls;=20
Mississippi Proposes Online Curriculum

NET NEUTRALITY

ILL EFFECTS OF A GATED CYBER WORLD
[SOURCE: Seattle Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Comentary] If computer-network providers are=20
allowed to hijack the Internet, the damage will=20
go much deeper than the consumers' wallets.=20
Democracy will be at risk with the inevitable=20
limiting of voices if Internet neutrality is not=20
ensured. The effect of allowing a few companies=20
to toll traffic across the pipes through which=20
Web content flows would be chilling, and primed=20
for abuse. Not only could the network keepers=20
decide what and whom to charge, the companies=20
could use this power as a tool to promote their=20
services before a competitor. How will telephone=20
companies that provide DSL respond to new=20
Internet accessories like Voice over Internet=20
Protocol (VoIP), the telephone service provided=20
across the Internet? The biggest loser in a gated=20
cyber world would be American democracy.=20
Democracy is already suffering from the effects=20
of consolidation, especially in the media where=20
only a handful of companies either own outright=20
or own interests in films, newspapers, magazines,=20
radio, television, book publishing, and any other=20
media channel that can be devoured. Congress=20
should think of that before funneling more power into the hands of a few.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003006552_nette...
.html

FAIR USE AND NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Prof Lawrence Lessig]
[Commentary] in a fundamental sense, fair use=20
(FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same=20
thing. They are both state enforced limits on the=20
property rights of others. In both cases, the=20
limits are slight -- the vast range of uses=20
granted a copyright holder are only slightly=20
restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed=20
a network owner are only slightly restricted by=20
NN. And in both cases, the line defining the=20
limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who=20
support each say that the limits imposed on the=20
property right are necessary for some important=20
social end (admittedly, different in each case),=20
and that the costs of enforcing those limits are=20
outweighed by the benefits of protecting that=20
social end. So from this perspective, it is easy=20
to understand those who reject FU and NN. And it=20
is easy to understand those who embrace FU and=20
NN. What gets difficult is understanding those=20
who embrace one while rejecting the other -- at=20
least when that rejection is articulated in terms=20
of =93government regulation.=94 For there is a=20
consistency problem for those who embrace FU=20
while arguing against =93government regulation to=20
support NN.=94 For FU and NN are both =93government=20
regulations=94 -- each government defined limits on=20
government granted property rights. In both=20
cases, a government official (a court, or the=20
FCC) is telling a property owner =93this use of=20
your property is opposed by the state.=94 And while=20
there are important differences in the way FU and=20
NN get administered, if anything, FU is more=20
vague, more complex, more expensive, and more=20
uncertain than the regulations being called for under NN.
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003410.shtml

KEEPING NET NEUTRAL BENEFITS TV INDUSTRY
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Television companies are putting=20
more programs online. Viral video Web sites are=20
all the rage. It's clear the Internet is joining=20
TV stations, cable systems and satellite=20
providers as an important distribution channel=20
for entertainment. Congress should ensure the Web=20
remains an even playing field by preventing=20
Internet access providers from offering some=20
content providers better connections than others.=20
The National Cable & Telecommunications=20
Association calls the network neutrality=20
legislation "a solution in search of a problem."=20
That's one way to look at it. Another is that the=20
measure would prevent Web access companies that=20
are (legitimately) in search of higher profits=20
from starting down a harmful path. Congress=20
should act to keep those with more money from having a leg up on the Intern=
et.
http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=3D29858
(requires free registration)

EYES ON THE 'NET
[SOURCE: The Daily News (Jacksonville, NC), AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] As soon as a marketplace relatively=20
free of heavy-handed regulation develops a=20
resource that shows value for a wide variety of=20
consumers, you can be sure some interest group=20
will arise to lock the current situation into=20
place by law.A current example is the promotion=20
of bills in Congress that would give the Federal=20
Communications Commission the power to enforce=20
the rather vaguely understood concept of =93net=20
neutrality=94 on Internet service providers.=20
Network neutrality is not a technological or=20
network-architectural term or a model arising=20
from the structure of the Internet itself.=20
Instead it is a legal and political term for the=20
belief that the Internet should be governed as=20
the old monopoly utilities were, with the =93pipes=94=20
to the Internet viewed as =93common carriers,=94 open=20
to all on terms decided by a government=20
regulatory agency. Ultimately, it means=20
government price controls. Before succumbing to=20
the idea that government regulation will ensure=20
fairness or neutrality, it should be helpful to=20
remember that the Internet has developed under a=20
very light regulatory regime. With entrepreneurs=20
large and small free to try things (many of which=20
fail) the number of users, speed of connections=20
and variety of products, services and information=20
available through the Internet has increased=20
fantastically. The Internet has achieved=20
widespread adoption faster than any comparable=20
technology, especially than technologies tightly=20
regulated by government. Enforcing net neutrality=20
through FCC regulation is likely to make future=20
innovation slower. Prices for Internet services=20
should be determined through the changing=20
interplay of supply and demand rather than with the blunderbuss of regulati=
on.
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=3D/GlobalTemplates/Deta...
.cfm&StoryID=3D41882&Section=3DOpinion

NET NEUTRALITY'S END MIGHT TURN A BUCK
[SOURCE: Light Reading press release]
Incumbent network operators hoping to boost=20
revenues by charging premium fees for delivery of=20
some broadband content are likely to realize=20
modest gains if current rules that guarantee=20
so-called "network neutrality" are eliminated,=20
according to a new report from Light Reading=20
Insider (www.lightreading.com/insider), a paid=20
research service of Light Reading Inc.=20
(www.lightreading.com). "At first glance, charges=20
for the delivery of Internet content look as=20
though they could provide an additional $10.7=20
billion in carrier revenues by 2010," notes Simon=20
Sherrington, research analyst for Light Reading=20
Insider and author of the report. But a variety=20
of factors =AD including potential customer churn,=20
competitive pressures from operators that=20
maintain net-neutrality policies, and the ongoing=20
threat of re-regulation =AD would likely diminish=20
those revenue gains, Sherrington says. "If=20
operators could persuade companies representing=20
20 percent of the consumer content market to pay=20
a premium for improved content delivery, they=20
could open a market worth around $309 million in=20
the U.S. by 2010," he says. "Accessing 20 percent=20
of the business information and ecommerce markets=20
could deliver a further $1.8 billion by 2010."=20
Other key findings of the report include: 1) In=20
practice, the widespread imposition of content=20
delivery charges looks highly unlikely. 2)=20
Operators using selective charging mechanisms to=20
prevent competitors from undercutting them or to=20
prevent revenue losses are likely to face close=20
scrutiny from regulators. The End of Net=20
Neutrality: An Economic Analysis offers an=20
assessment of the revenue opportunity that would=20
be available to network operators if regulators=20
set aside requirements that prohibit those=20
operators from charging fees for different tiers=20
of Internet connectivity service. It analyzes how=20
operators might charge for preferential content=20
delivery and quantifies the additional revenue=20
they might generate. It also considers the=20
potential reactions of competitors, content=20
providers, and access customers to such a move=20
and draws conclusions about the commercial appeal=20
of the strategy for broadband access network operators.
http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=3D95323

HILLARY, FOR NET NEUTRALITY, FIRES UP THE RIGHT
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
In Washingtonian physics, for every action,=20
there's an unequal and irrational reaction. So=20
since presidential hopeful Sen Hillary Clinton=20
(D-NY) co-sponsored a bill on Net Neutrality last=20
week, someone must make hay out of it. On Monday,=20
the American Conservative Union sent an e-mail=20
alert to members denouncing Sen Clinton=92s=20
political alliance with various=20
pro-net-neutrality groups as a concerted effort=20
by government to seize control of the Internet:=20
"While Hillary, MoveOn.org and their liberal=20
allies call this legislation =91net neutrality,=92 it=20
is nothing less than a government takeover of the=20
Internet. If they succeed, this legislation would=20
allow government to control Internet content and prices."
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6336956.html?display=3DBreaking+News

INTERNET

FREE BROADBAND FOR THE MASSES
[SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Steve Rosenbush]
M2Z Networks, a company launched by former FCC=20
Wireless Bureau Chief John Muleta, wants to offer=20
free wireless broadband to consumers across the=20
US. M2Z aims provide a basic advertiser-supported=20
service at no cost to consumers. It would charge=20
fees for premium services, such as faster=20
connection speeds. "The model here is broadcast=20
TV," said Muleta, referring to free over-the-air=20
TV, which is supported by ad revenue. He founded=20
the company with Milo Medin, founder of the ( at )Home=20
Networks broadband service. But what may sound=20
like a straightforward plan won't be easy to put=20
into practice. M2Z's biggest obstacle is gaining=20
access to the radio airwaves over which wireless=20
signals travel. The FCC typically sells the=20
airwaves, or spectrum, at auctions where rival=20
bidders spend large sums with no guarantee that=20
they can secure the specific chunks of spectrum=20
they want. The biggest-ever FCC auction of=20
spectrum, worth an estimated $8 billion to $15=20
billion, is set to begin in August. Muleta wants=20
to bypass the auction process altogether. He's=20
hoping to strike a deal that would give him a=20
preset block of underutilized spectrum in the=20
range of 2155 megahertz to 2175 megahertz. The=20
government has designated the spectrum for=20
high-speed wireless services. Rather than fork=20
over the up-front payments associated with=20
auctions, M2Z wants to give the government 5% of annual sales.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060522_430352...
* Group makes play to build $400M wireless network
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12911687/
* Spectrum Is Too Valuable To Give Away
[SOURCE: New York Sun, AUTHOR: Former FCC Commissioner Harold Fuchtgott-Rot=
h]
http://www.freepress.net/news/15628
* Company Asks U.S. to Provide Radio Space for Free Internet
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/technology/23wireless.html

A CURE TO CITYWIDE WI-FI WOES?
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Marguerite Reardon]
A new Wi-Fi start-up called Wavion Networks came=20
out of stealth mode Monday and said it has=20
developed technology to solve many of the=20
problems big cities like Philadelphia and San=20
Francisco face when deploying citywide=20
Wi-Fi. Interest in citywide Wi-Fi networks has=20
exploded in the past year, with cities including=20
Philadelphia, San Francisco and Chicago planning=20
to blanket their cities with wireless Internet=20
access. But early deployments in cities, such as=20
Tempe, Ariz., and St. Cloud, Fla., are resulting=20
in contractors being required to deploy more=20
access points than had been originally planned=20
and subscribers being forced to attach signal=20
boosters to their homes to get Internet access=20
inside. San Jose, Calif.-based Wavion, which is=20
backed by venture capital firm Sequoia Capital,=20
says it has developed software and silicon that=20
not only increase the transmission distance of a=20
Wi-Fi signal, but also alleviate much of the=20
signal loss so that fewer people need to deploy signal boosters.
http://news.com.com/A+cure+to+citywide+Wi-Fi+woes/2100-7351_3-6075380.ht...
tag=3Dnefd.top

COMMERCE ROLE IN INTERNET OVERSIGHT SCRUTINIZED
[SOURCE: Washington Post 5/20, AUTHOR: Arshad Mohammed]
The Bush administration plans to renew its=20
exclusive contract with the Internet Corporation=20
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the=20
U.S.-based nonprofit group that oversees key=20
technical matters governing how computers=20
communicate over the Internet. The intention to=20
give ICANN a sole-source contract, disclosed on a=20
federal government contracting Web site Thursday,=20
reflects the Commerce Department's belief that=20
the group, based in Marina del Rey, Calif., is=20
the only entity capable of the unglamorous but=20
necessary responsibility of managing the=20
Internet's basic plumbing. The decision may=20
revive international debate about the Commerce=20
Department's role overseeing ICANN's work, a=20
source of resentment among countries such as=20
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. Even the European=20
Union has called for phasing out the department's=20
oversight in favor of some model that would=20
increase international input. This puts the Bush=20
administration in something of a bind as it tries=20
to balance the demands of U.S. lawmakers adamant=20
that the United States retain its oversight with=20
those of other countries that want more of a say.=20
Under the contract, which would run for one year=20
with four one-year options, ICANN would keep its=20
core function of managing the Internet's domain=20
name system -- essentially overseeing the master=20
list at the heart of the Internet that helps=20
users find their way around and ensures traffic=20
goes to the right addresses. In its notice, the=20
Commerce Department said other groups had until=20
June 17 to make the case that they were capable=20
of meeting the contract's technical demands and=20
overcome the agency's presumption that ICANN is best suited to the task.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR200605...
1684.html

NEW DOMAIN NAME -- MOBI -- COULD SPUR WIRELESS WEB
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Li Yuan li.yuan( at )wsj.com]
Surfing the Web on a cellphone can be as=20
difficult as surfing the ocean on a tiny board.=20
Now, a company founded by Microsoft Corp., Google=20
Inc., Vodafone Group PLC, Nokia Corp., and=20
several other companies, aims to make it easier=20
to browse the Internet on wireless devices such=20
as cellphones or BlackBerries. Currently, few Web=20
pages are designed to be accessed via mobile=20
devices. Many sites can't be displayed on tiny=20
cellphone screens, and most would take a much=20
longer time to download than on a PC. Mobile Top=20
Level Domain aims to change that in part by=20
setting up a new domain name specifically for=20
wireless Internet Web sites called dot-mobi. Just=20
as dot-com is the domain name for many Web pages=20
on the wired Internet, dot-mobi will become the=20
suffix for Web pages that are formatted for=20
cellphones and other wireless devices, the=20
company says. Mobile Top Level Domain Chief=20
Executive Officer Neil Edwards says the union of=20
the Web and cellphones has so far been "a bad=20
experience" that consumers and the mobile=20
industry have failed to embrace. "Dot-mobi makes=20
the Internet work on phones," says Mr. Edwards.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114834861767160235.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
ketplace
(requires subscription)

INTERNET SEARCHES: LIBRARIANS DO IT BETTER
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Megan Rauscher]
According to a study reported today at the=20
Medical Library Association's annual meeting in=20
Phoenix, cancer patients are more likely to find=20
what they are looking for with a=20
librarian-mediated search instead of "going it=20
alone." Over the last five years, Ruti Volk, a=20
professional librarian and manager of the Patient=20
Education Resource Center (PERC) at the=20
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer=20
Center, and colleagues have done about 2,100=20
searches for cancer patients. After each=20
mediated-search, patients are asked to complete=20
an evaluation on the information provided to=20
them. Results from 513 evaluations revealed=20
several interesting findings, Volk noted in an=20
interview with Reuters Health. "One of the most=20
interesting was that 65 percent of patients said=20
they were not able to obtain the information that=20
we sent to them from any other source. They were=20
not able to get it by themselves by using the=20
Internet; they didn't get it from a healthcare=20
provider or from a cancer organization." An=20
additional 30 percent of PERC visitors said the=20
librarian provided some new information. Only 4=20
percent said they found all the same information=20
on their own. "This demonstrates," said Volk,=20
"that even though the information is supposedly=20
so accessible and everything is on the web,=20
people still need the help of a professional to=20
find information that is relevant to them that is=20
current and accurate and authoritative."
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=3DinternetNews&storyID=
=3D2006-05-22T171250Z_01_DIT257042_RTRUKOC_0_US-INTERNET-SEARCHES.xml

TELEVISION/BROADCASTING

COMMERCE SHAPES $1.5 BILLION PLAN FOR DIGITAL TV AID
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Earlier this year, Congress established a=20
converter-subsidy program in an effort to=20
mitigate the effects of the digital television=20
transition on millions of consumers that,=20
according to the National Association of=20
Broadcasters, possess 73 million analog TV sets=20
not connected to cable or satellite. The=20
Department of Commerce is several weeks away from=20
soliciting public comment on the $1.5 billion=20
subsidy program to help consumers purchase=20
converter boxes to run analog television sets=20
after the cessation of analog TV broadcasting in=20
early 2009. Congress has ordered Commerce's=20
National Telecommunications and Information=20
Administration to supervise the program, but=20
lawmakers gave NTIA director John Kneuer just a=20
few instructions on how to allocate the money and=20
how to limit ways consumers may use it. As a=20
result, NTIA is planning to issue =93by late July=94=20
a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that would seek public=20
input on program details, NTIA spokesman Ranjit=20
De Silva said last Monday. The Office of=20
Management and Budget has the document under=20
review, he added. coupon program without=20
eligibility criteria could threaten to exhaust=20
the $1.5 billion fund and force millions of=20
low-income consumers either to fund 100% of their=20
converter box costs or shop for TV sets equipped=20
with over-the-air digital tuners. According to=20
the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. has 105 million=20
occupied housing units. If each one sought to=20
redeem two $40 coupons, the box program would=20
cost $8.4 billion. The program would cost $1.6=20
billion if NTIA were to restrict eligibility to=20
just the 20.5 million households that are=20
broadcast-only. NTIA could cut the cost even more=20
if only broadcast-only homes that met an income test were eligible.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6336337.html?display=3DPolicy

FCC MISSES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEADLINE ON PUBLIC INTEREST OBLIGATION MATTERS
[SOURCE: The Campaign Legal Center, AUTHOR: Meredith McGehee]
Six months ago, the Federal Communications=20
Commission's own Consumer Advisory Committee=20
asked the Commission to define the public=20
interest obligations of digital television=20
broadcasters by May 18. The date has passed=20
without any action. CLC Policy Director Meredith=20
McGehee sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin=20
Martin calling on him and the rest of the=20
Commission to define public interest obligations for digital broadcasters.
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/FCC-270.html
* Members of the FCC's Advisory Committee have=20
sent Chairman Martin a letter as well. See=20
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dnode/2436

MARKETERS TUNE IN TO THE TWEEN SET
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Paul Farhi and Jennifer Frey]
The average American tween lives in a world of=20
electronic opulence, inside his or her own media=20
bubble. According to a recent survey by=20
Nickelodeon, 77 percent of 9- to 14-year-olds=20
have TVs in their bedrooms, with about half this=20
group enjoying cable or satellite access. Some 59=20
percent have video-game systems, 49 percent have=20
a DVD player and 22 percent have computers=20
connected to the Internet. Marketers have known=20
about the buying power of the pre- and=20
early-adolescent -- or "tween" -- market ever=20
since the late '60s and Bobby Sherman. What's=20
different now is how much more efficient and=20
precise selling to tweens has become. Now, thanks=20
to niche cable channels and even niche-ier=20
Internet sites, advertisers can tailor messages=20
specific to tweens, leaving the rest of the world=20
only dimly aware of tween culture. Broadcasters=20
stopped long ago trying to appeal to kids during=20
prime time, now focusing on adults between ages=20
18 and 49. So, for tweens, the big action is on=20
cable. The most-watched networks among the=20
nation's 26 million children between ages 9 and=20
14 (definitions of tween vary, some including=20
children as young as 7) are Viacom's Nickelodeon=20
and the Disney Channel, owned by the Walt Disney=20
Co. But there's more: Another Disney-owned=20
channel, ABC Family, targets tweens, as does the=20
Cartoon Network, owned by Time Warner Inc. Sure,=20
tweens watch "American Idol" like the rest of the=20
nation -- it's the No. 1 show in their=20
demographic -- but of the 25 most-popular=20
programs among 9- to 14-year-olds in mid-April,=20
only seven were on the traditional broadcast=20
networks, according to Nielsen Media Research.=20
Sixteen of the programs were carried by either=20
Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel, the twin=20
towers of tween targeting. Sheer numbers alone=20
don't explain why the media conglomerates, and=20
their advertisers, are busily courting tweens.=20
Although they form a sizable bloc in themselves,=20
tweens are valued customers primarily because of=20
their influence on their families' overall spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR200605...
1903.html
(requires registration)

RADIO FILTH STARTS IN CORPORATE SUITES
[SOURCE: NY Daily News, AUTHOR: Pete Fornatale, WFUV ]
[Commentary] The lion's share of blame for=20
courser radio and TV programming must be placed=20
at the feet of the broadcast industry itself.=20
Here's the problem: Unregulated, uncontrolled=20
radio makes so much money doing its worst that it=20
simply can't afford to do its best. Since 1996,=20
an orgy of consolidation has helped fuel a 34%=20
decline in the number of owners, a 90% rise in=20
the cost of advertising rates, and - not=20
coincidentally - a rise in the number of indecent=20
broadcasts. And the public is complicit. In the=20
face of these trends, too many of us have turned=20
down the volume on our own voices, settling for a=20
kind of radio that, for the most part, replicates=20
the industry view of what it should be. It=20
doesn't help that the FCC continues to be=20
populated primarily by appointees sympathetic to=20
the broadcasting industry and often employed by=20
the broadcasting industry when they step down.=20
Conflict of interest, anyone? Rampant=20
deregulation has created this mess - and only=20
reregulation can get us out of it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/419822p-354485c.html

KOPPEL PROPOSES NEW JOURNALISM JOB
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
When asked for B&C's anniversary issue to dust=20
off his crystal ball and predict what future=20
programming development will have the greatest=20
impact on the business, Koppel used the=20
opportunity to take aim at the current state of=20
journalistic affairs. "At some point, in the=20
not-too-distant future, it is going to occur to=20
someone in authority at a network news division=20
that developments beyond the borders of the=20
United States are worthy of ongoing and detailed=20
attention by a corps of smart, curious and=20
courageous young men and women who are willing to=20
live and work in places like India, China and the=20
Middle East for extended tours," said Koppel. "We=20
could call these people '=93foreign=20
correspondents.' Their reports could inform us of=20
important and potentially dangerous developments=20
at a time when we can ill afford to remain in the=20
dark. Actually, ... never mind. It=92s too=20
expensive, and why would anything that anyone=92s=20
hatching overseas have any kind of impact on us?"=20
Asked to describe TV at its worst, Koppel laid=20
into it with vigor: "Television, which has such=20
an enormous capacity for greatness, remains the=20
most timid medium in the communications=20
universe," he said. "It is marked by endless=20
repetition, banality and lack of creativity. It=20
continues to be strangled by its own commercial=20
success, breeding endless copies of whatever=20
mediocrity currently enjoys ratings success.=20
Television makes money by reacting to the market=20
rather than achieving greatness (and perhaps=20
making even more money) by leading and producing genuine creativity."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6336804?display=3DBreaking+News

NETS TAKE FAMILY-FRIENDLY FIVEPACK
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Broadcast networks picked up five shows that had=20
been sponsored by the Family Friendly Programming=20
Forum. The forum is composed of 44 major=20
advertisers--with products they believe are best=20
advertised on family shows--who were concerned=20
about the shortage of suitable shows on the=20
broadcast networks and decided to put some cash=20
on the table as an incentive. The advertisers=20
cover a networks=92 cost of developing=20
family-friendly scripts into a pilot. If the show=20
goes nowhere, the network hasn't lost anything;=20
if the show gets picked up, the network reimburses FFPF for the costs.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6336867.html?display=3DBreaki...
News

TELECOM LEGISLATION

RETRANS: A BIG HOLE IN TELECOM BILL
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: James Gleason, American Cable Associati=
on]
The roughly 900 independent cable operators=20
represented by the American Cable Association are=20
encouraged by many of the provisions in the=20
proposed Senate Telecommunications Bill, S. 2686.=20
But its members will be even more encouraged if=20
the Senate addresses problems caused by the=20
unintended consequences of prior broadcast=20
carriage legislation. The issue that has the most=20
impact on a cable operator=92s business =97=20
retransmission consent and the tying and bundling=20
of content =97 is missing from this legislation.=20
Through such tying and bundling, broadcast groups=20
and media conglomerates have effectively taken=20
over cable operators' video pipes by saying=20
they'll withhold their signal, creating havoc for=20
customers. By government fiat given to the=20
broadcasters, customers are forced to pay for=20
ever-increasing retransmission consent demands=20
while also being forced to take cable networks=20
they don't want, all for the right to receive=20
free over-the-air TV. If the Senate does not=20
address retransmission consent, then two things=20
are a given: One, basic and expanded basic cable=20
rates will rise and rise. Two, more and more=20
unwanted, and often indecent, programming will be=20
shoved onto consumers -- and they will be given=20
no choice. The Senate bill is a good starting=20
point. However, to ensure consumers in smaller=20
markets and rural America receive the best in=20
voice, video and data from cable, the Senate must=20
tackle the issue of retransmission consent.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6336336.html?display=3DOpinion

OPPONENTS: BELLSOUTH IS SEEKING UNFAIR DEAL
[SOURCE: The Daily Advertiser (Louisiana), AUTHOR: John Hill]
Cable television operators are taking aim at what=20
they say is the misnamed "cable competition" bill=20
under consideration in the Louisiana Legislature.
"This is not a cable competition bill; it is a=20
sweetheart deal for BellSouth," said Cox Cable=20
executive Sharon Kleinpeter. BellSouth is the=20
driving force behind House Bill 699 by state Rep.=20
Billy Montgomery that would allow telephone=20
companies to get a statewide franchise to offer=20
Internet Protocol Television, a broadband=20
delivery service developed by Microsoft TV that=20
is just coming on stream. Cable operators say=20
there already is competition in television=20
service, both from satellite television and the=20
fact that any operator could come into any city=20
and negotiate a franchise agreement just like=20
cable operators have had to do. To allow=20
BellSouth and other telephone companies to ignore=20
local governments and not have to negotiate with=20
individual local governments for right-of-way=20
access, as do cable operators, constitutes unfair=20
competition, Kleinpeter said. "That's not a level playing field," she said.
http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=3D/20060522/NEWS0...
05220315/1002

NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY PASSES FRANCHISE REFORM
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Both houses of the New Jersey legislature have=20
now passed video franchise reform bills. The=20
Assembly adopted a bill which makes it easier=20
for telcos like Verizon to secure franchises for=20
video service to compete with cable and=20
satellite. Verizon has been pushing similar laws=20
in numerous states as it works on the national=20
front for a telecommunications reform bill that=20
will create a national franchising scheme.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6337061?display=3DBreaking+News

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

OFFICIAL SECRETS
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Attorney General Alberto R.=20
Gonzales, asked this weekend whether he believes=20
he can prosecute journalists for publishing=20
classified information, made a statement that=20
should chill the bones of every American who=20
values a vigorous press: "It depends on the=20
circumstances." Speaking on ABC's "This Week,"=20
Mr. Gonzales explained, "There are some statutes=20
on the book which, if you read the language=20
carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a=20
possibility. That's a policy judgment by the=20
Congress in passing that kind of legislation. We=20
have an obligation to enforce those laws." But=20
presenting the administration's radical new=20
strategy as mere deference to Congress is=20
profoundly dishonest. The administration is=20
seeking to convert a moribund World War I-era=20
espionage law into an American version of=20
Britain's Official Secrets Act. Mr. Gonzales is=20
correct that the law, which bans the transmission=20
of national defense information to anyone not=20
cleared to receive it, would -- if read literally=20
-- make criminals out of journalists who publish=20
such material. For that matter, it would also=20
permit the jailing of whistle-blowers, academics=20
who write about leaked information, members of=20
Congress who disclose secrets and, theoretically,=20
even readers of newspapers who discuss the=20
stories. Precisely because of the law's=20
unthinkable scope, the First Amendment has long=20
been understood to limit its application.=20
Government has gone after officials who promise=20
to protect the nation's secrets and then fail to=20
do so -- but generally not against citizens who=20
receive those secrets. The attorney general=20
pretends that the administration's current=20
understanding of the law merely reflects=20
Congress's policy judgment, rather than its own.=20
Yet only a few years ago, when Congress passed=20
(and President Bill Clinton vetoed) a bill to=20
criminalize leaks of classified material, people=20
on both sides of the issue understood that=20
current law did not criminalize the vast majority=20
of leaks -- let alone subsequent disclosures by=20
people who never swore to protect classified material in the first place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR200605...
1684.html
(requires registration)

DIVISIVE IN ANY LANGUAGE
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: E. J. Dionne Jr.]
[Commentary] As it considered the immigration=20
bill last week, the Senate passed an utterly=20
useless amendment sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe=20
(R-Okla.) declaring English to be our "national=20
language" and calling for a government role in=20
"preserving and enhancing" the place of English.=20
There is no point to this amendment except to say=20
to members of our currently large=20
Spanish-speaking population that they will be=20
legally and formally disrespected in a way that=20
earlier generations of immigrants from -- this is=20
just a partial list -- Germany, Italy, Poland,=20
Russia, Norway, Sweden, France, Hungary, Greece,=20
China, Japan, Finland, Lithuania, Lebanon, Syria,=20
Bohemia, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia=20
were not. Immigrants from all these places=20
honored their origins, built an ethnic press and=20
usually worshiped in the languages of their=20
ancestors. But they also learned English because=20
they knew that advancement in our country=20
required them to do so. True, we now have=20
English-as-a-Second-Language programs that have=20
created some resentments and, in the eyes of=20
their critics, can slow the transition from=20
Spanish to English. Still, the evidence is=20
overwhelming that Spanish speakers and their kids=20
are as aware as anyone of the importance of=20
learning English. That's why we have an attorney=20
general named Gonzales, senators named Salazar,=20
Martinez and Menendez, and a mayor of Los Angeles named Villaraigosa.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR200605...
1156.html
(requires registration)

AT&T GAVE NSA WEB-DATA ACCESS, PRIVACY SUIT SAYS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Dionne Searcey dionne.searcey( at )wsj.com]
Documents unveiled in a lawsuit that privacy=20
advocates filed against AT&T contain allegations=20
from a former AT&T technician that the company=20
allowed the National Security Agency to install=20
equipment capable of examining "every individual=20
message" on the Internet. In the documents,=20
published yesterday by Wired.com, Mark Klein, the=20
former AT&T employee, offers technical=20
explanations for how the NSA may have tapped into=20
AT&T's network by installing hardware in secret=20
rooms at the company's San Francisco office and=20
elsewhere. The lawsuit, filed by the Electronic=20
Frontier Foundation in federal court in San=20
Francisco, accuses AT&T of illegally cooperating=20
with the NSA to collect phone records without=20
court authorization. The suit seeks billions of=20
dollars in an attempt to hold AT&T responsible=20
for divulging private information to the NSA. has yet to be completed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114834322934160134.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one
(requires subscription)
* Documents Say AT&T Assisted Surveillance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR200605...
1603.html
* Pre-9/11 records help flag suspicious calling
Armed with details of billions of telephone=20
calls, the National Security Agency used phone=20
records linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to=20
create a template of how phone activity among=20
terrorists looks, say current and former=20
intelligence officials who were briefed about the program.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060523/a_nsa23.art.htm

QUICKLY

A DEAL IS SAID TO BE CLOSE FOR 2 PAPERS IN PHILADELPHIA
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Katharine Seelye & Julie Bosman]
A group of Philadelphia investors is close to=20
striking a deal to buy The Philadelphia Inquirer=20
and The Daily News from the McClatchy Company, a=20
person close to the negotiations said yesterday.=20
If the group's bid is accepted, an agreement=20
could be announced as early as today. But details=20
remain unresolved, the person said, and a deal=20
could still fall through. The sale under=20
discussion could bring close to $500 million to=20
McClatchy, which bought 32 Knight Ridder=20
newspapers in March and put 12 of them up for=20
sale. Leading the group of Philadelphia investors=20
is Brian P. Tierney, a Philadelphia advertising=20
and public relations executive who has joined=20
forces with Bruce Toll, a founder of Toll=20
Brothers Inc., the home building company.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/business/media/23paper.html
(requires registration)

ADAPT OR DIE
[SOURCE: American Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Rachel Smolkin]
As newspaper companies confront a challenging=20
future, they are increasingly viewing their=20
trademark print product as the engine driving a=20
diverse =93portfolio=94 that embraces other=20
=93platforms=94 such as Web sites and niche=20
publications. Is this a strategy for survival?
http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3D4111

POLE-FEE FLAP COULD PROVE COSTLY TO CABLE
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Haugsted]
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is=20
seeking an increase in pole-attachment fees. The=20
DWP is following the lead of other utilities=20
seeking to extract more revenue from cable=20
operators in recognition of the renters=92 rising=20
income from products beyond the core video=20
offering. =93Our concern is any increase like that=20
gets passed on to consumers,=94 said Deane=20
Leavenworth, president of the Los Angeles Cable=20
Operators Association and Time Warner Cable vice=20
president of corporate relations. =93It=92s a new=20
revenue source for the DWP, but it=92s borne only=20
by cable subscribers.=94 Los Angeles=92s utility=20
company isn't the only one in the country which=20
believes cable needs to pay more to use its=20
poles. The trade group Edison Electric Institute=20
is pushing in Washington, D.C., for an end to=20
rate-setting by the Federal Communications=20
Commission with mandated negotiated agreements.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6336330.html?display=3DTop+Stories

MAP ASKS FCC TO BRAND RURAL PROGRAMMER
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Media Access Project wants the FCC to declare DBS=20
programmer RFD Communications a commercial=20
service and ineligible for the protected status=20
of a public-interest channel. Competitor Farm=20
Journal Inc. had asked the FCC for a declaratory=20
ruling that RFD was a commercial entity, and the=20
Washington-based MAP agreed, saying the FCC=20
should label RDF a commercial service and put=20
EchoStar and DirecTV on notice that they will be=20
"held accountable" for continuing to carry RFD as=20
one of its set-aside channels. Last month, the=20
commission asked for public comment on the=20
request by agricultural media=20
producer/distributor Farm Journal that it rule=20
RFD-TV does not meet the requirements for=20
fulfilling satellite operators' FCC-mandated public-interest requirements.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6337059?display=3DBreaking+News

SEVEN WAYS TO GET CHEAP CALLS
[SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Burt Helm]
A look at Internet phone calls and other ways to make calls on the cheap.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/index.html/content/may2006/tc2006...
9_042268.htm

MISSISSIPPI PROPOSES SELF-PACED, ONLINE CURRICULUM
[SOURCE: eSchool News]
Mississippi's state superintendent has floated a=20
plan that would allow the state's students to=20
take self-paced online courses as an alternative=20
to graduation. The plan, which aims to reduce the=20
state's dropout rate and better prepare students=20
for college and the workforce, also asks students=20
to choose from among seven possible career paths.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=3D6311
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------