July 2006

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

MEDIA OWNERSHIP
Consumer Committee Weighs In On Ownership
FCC Releases Adelphia Deal
Murdoch Fuels DirecTV-Dish Rumor
Europe Satellite Titan Nears Reality

NETWORK NEUTRALITY
AT&T, Qwest Ask FCC For Broadband Freedom
Net neutrality needs a new player
Today's cell phone system argues for retaining network neutrality
Net neutrality advocates put pressure on lawmakers

TELECOM
BellSouth Shareholders Approve AT&T Merger
The Phone Companies Still Don't Get It

INDECENCY/CONTENT
Soldiers=92 Words May Test PBS Language Rules
H--l to the Chief
Television Industry Unveiling $300M Content Control Campaign July 27
Court Indecency Hearing August 8
Congress targets deceptive 'sex' sites

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
Group appeals government eavesdropping ruling
Surveillance We Can Live With

CABLE
Maryland County Fires Back at Verizon
CAB Has Questions for Nielsen

PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Senate Committee Funds CPB's Ready To Learn, DTV
CPB Board Adopts Fiscal Year 2007 Operating Budget

FUTURE OF TELEVISION
Television Everywhere
Lessons From USDTV=92s Demise

QUICKLY -- Media coverage may be what holds=20
companies to account; Two Views of the Same News=20
Find Opposite Biases; Men, Signing Off; Groups=20
Oppose Vote on Weak Data Breach Bill; Bush's=20
Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed; E-rate=20
Eligible Services; Office of Science and=20
Technology Policy; Beyond Cable. Beyond DSL.;=20
Collaborative Grants in Media and Communications

MEDIA OWNERSHIP

CONSUMER COMMITTEE WEIGHS IN ON OWNERSHIP
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee has=20
approved recommendations on how the commission=20
should proceed with its ownership review, which=20
is essentially comprehensively, openly, and with=20
plenty of opportunity for consumer input. The=20
committee made four principal recommendations: 1)=20
adopt rules that promote localism, competition=20
and diversity of voices; 2) schedule and attend=20
hearings across the country (the FCC majority has=20
already committee to at least five); 3) compile a=20
"far more complete" record than in 2003,=20
including more media concentration studies=20
(studies are also on the agenda); 4) and put out=20
a Notice of Proposed Rule Change, with sufficient=20
time for additional comment, on any specific=20
proposed rule changes. The FCC has not committed=20
to putting out changes for comment, though it has=20
set an extended initial comment on what those=20
changes should be. Commission Democrats Jonathan=20
Adelstein and Michael Copps have also called for=20
those NPRMs. The committee-approved document also=20
poses some key questions it wants the FCC to=20
specifically address as it reviews all its rules.=20
They include how it could reasonably proceed=20
without first concluding a 2004 inquiry on the=20
impact of consolidation of localism. Other key=20
questions include whether concentration increases=20
the chances for payola--a question added since an=20
April draft of the document--as well as its=20
impact on indecency, minority ownership,=20
independent programming. The committee also asks=20
whether broadcasters argument that it needs to be=20
able to own more stations for "economies of=20
scale" holds up in a DTV world where they will be=20
able to broadcast multiple streams from a single station.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355441.html?display=3DBreaki...
News
* See the Committee's recommendation:=20
http://www.benton.org/benton_files/MediaWg-Onershipaspassed.doc
* See a summary of the Committee's July 21=20
meeting: http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=3Dnode/2995

FCC RELEASES ADELPHIA DEAL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Late Friday, the FCC released the approved order=20
for Comcast and Time Warner's purchase of=20
Adelphia. The FCC will use a single arbitrator to=20
settle program carriage disputes involving=20
regional sports networks either owned by Comcast=20
or Time Warner or seeking carriage on their=20
systems. But that decision can then be appealed=20
to the FCC. Saying the merger of Adelphia into=20
Comcast and Time Warner created the potential for=20
controlling access or inflating the price to=20
regional sports, the FCC made protecting access=20
to the hometown team's games a key condition of=20
approving the merger. It defined regional sports=20
nets as must-have programming, for which there is=20
not reasonable substitute, and access to which is=20
crucial to competing multichannel video providers=20
like satellite and telcos. It made an exception=20
in Philadelphia, however, grandfathering=20
Comcast's decision not to make its regional=20
sports network there available to the satellite=20
competition, using an access exception to=20
landline-delivered sports networks. The=20
arbitration provision sunsets after six years.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355569.html?display=3DBreaki...
News
* See the FCC order:=20
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.pdf
* Consumer Group: Comcast Ate Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania consumer coalition Consumers First!=20
is concerned about the fact that Comcast acquired=20
the last cable franchise in Philadelphia that it=20
didn't already own. Comcast secured the franchise=20
as part of its deal with Time Warner to divvy up=20
Adelphia Communications=92 franchises.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6355442.html?display=3DBreaking+News

MURDOCH FUELS DIRECTV-DISH RUMOR
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Moss]
Murdoch, whose company owns 38% of DirecTV,=20
helped to add fuel to the rumors of a=20
DirecTV-EchoStar merger when he was asked about a=20
possible deal Thursday during an appearance on=20
PBS=92 The Charlie Rose Show. EchoStar tried to buy=20
DirecTV several years ago, but in 2002, the=20
Federal Communications Commission and the=20
Department of Justice effectively put the kibosh=20
on that deal. Shortly thereafter, News Corp.=20
acquired its stake in DirecTV. But Murdoch said=20
he thinks the regulatory environment for such a=20
merger has changed since 2002. =93I think today it=20
is different -- the broadband coming, the=20
revolution, there are many more alternatives,=20
ways of getting pictures and information, that I=20
think it would be much harder for the government=20
to turn it down today,=94 Murdoch said. =93But as I=20
say, we'd have to get through a negotiation with=20
[EchoStar Chairmain] Charlie [Ergen]. Then there=20
would be the question of who would run it.=94=20
Murdoch also reiterated comments he=92s made=20
previously -- that DirecTV is negotiating with=20
potential partners about delivering a=20
wireless-broadband product. =93The technology=20
doesn't seem to be a problem -- it=92s getting the frequencies,=94 he said.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6355428.html?display=3DBreaking+News
* Wall Street Sizes Up a Satellite Merger
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6355545.html?display=3DTop+Stories

EUROPE SATELLITE TITAN NEARS REALITY
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Andy Pasztor andy.pasztor( at )wsj.com]
After years of fruitless consolidation efforts=20
marked by national squabbling, Europe's two=20
largest satellite makers are picking up momentum=20
toward creating a single, dominant regional=20
manufacturer, according to industry and=20
government officials. France's Thales SA, a=20
manufacturer of aircraft systems,=20
air-traffic-control equipment and a wide array of=20
military hardware, appears to have the clout and=20
the staying power to form what is projected to=20
become Europe's satellite powerhouse. Thales is=20
slated to take over the satellite operations of=20
Alcatel SA by the end of the year. Even before=20
that transaction closes, industry officials said,=20
Thales chief Denis Ranque has begun planning and=20
lobbying to eventually snare the Astrium=20
satellite-making unit of European Aeronautic=20
Defence & Space Co. Though political and=20
industrial hurdles remain, these officials said,=20
a consensus seems to be emerging that such a=20
combination not only is inevitable but conditions=20
for it have improved in recent months. The=20
situation is striking because Thales, the company=20
poised to run the anticipated combination with a=20
projected annual revenue of more than $4.4=20
billion in satellite-construction work doesn't=20
build any satellites. The push to merge the=20
satellite operations of Alcatel and EADS reflects=20
the limited budgets in the European Union for=20
military and research satellites. Such an entity=20
would have operations throughout Europe, enjoy a=20
virtual monopoly over publicly funded European=20
satellite projects, and control more than=20
one-third of the global market for commercial=20
telecommunications satellites. A combination=20
could give the two greater leverage in dealing=20
with customers, from governments to satellite=20
operators who distribute entertainment and data=20
to residential and business customers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115369613069114860.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
e_one
(requires subscription)

NETWORK NEUTRALITY

AT&T, QWEST ASK FCC FOR BROADBAND FREEDOM
[SOURCE: TelecomWeb]
AT&T and Qwest are seeking government approval to=20
free a wide range of their broadband telecom=20
activities from regulatory restrictions=20
originally designed to control and restrict=20
former Bell company practices, according to the=20
Federal Communications Commission. The=20
"forbearance petitions" from AT&T and Qwest --=20
filed July 13 and June 13, respectively -- now=20
are under consideration at the commission, with=20
the two companies essentially looking for parity=20
with the broadband operational freedom achieved=20
by Verizon Communications earlier this year. Like=20
Verizon, the two former Bell System companies=20
don't want Title II (common carrier) regulations=20
under the Communications Act of 1934 or the FCC's=20
historic Computer Inquiry rules to apply to any=20
of their corporate-wide or incumbent local=20
exchange carrier (ILEC) broadband services that=20
aren't strictly regarded as basic Internet=20
access. AT&T and Qwest contend they compete with=20
Verizon and are entitled to the same "relief"=20
treatment, which could involve the elimination of=20
certain tariff filings, special access and rival=20
interconnection obligations and regulatory=20
oversight. Whether the FCC has the discretion to=20
deny or delay the petitions - in view of the=20
Verizon development and other past broadband=20
deregulation decisions -- this could be a=20
contentious issue when the public and industry comments flood in.
http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/130/18952?199

NET NEUTRALITY NEEDS A NEW PLAYER
[SOURCE: Fortune, AUTHOR: Stephanie Mehta]
Would Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Citizens=20
Communications, be a better spokesperson against=20
Net Neutrality than AT&T's Ed Whitacre? Citizens=20
offers telephone, television and Internet=20
products in 23 states under the Frontier brand=20
name. Wilderotter is the rare phone company CEO=20
who also has worked at a tech company --=20
Microsoft to be specific -- so she has some=20
credibility on both sides of the aisle, so to=20
speak. In fact, she says she placed a call to her=20
former boss, Microsoft research and strategy=20
chief Craig Mundie, after the whole Net=20
neutrality issue started to come to a boil.=20
During their call, she says, "Craig told me he=20
was working at Microsoft to come up with a set of=20
guiding principals we could all sort of live by,=20
a sort of Internet bill-of-rights," Wilderotter=20
says. Internet content companies and telecom=20
players "can figure out ways to work together,"=20
she adds. Not surprisingly, Wilderotter believes=20
the disputes that pit phone and cable companies=20
against Internet companies should be worked out=20
in conference rooms, not on Capitol Hill. She=20
argues that no access provider would be dumb=20
enough to prevent its users from getting to sites=20
such as Google or Yahoo or MSN, or even to=20
popular fledgling sites, like YouTube. Such a=20
move, she says, simply would drive consumers into=20
the arms of competitors. (However, Net neutrality=20
advocates rightly argue that there's not a whole=20
lot of competition for broadband access; in most=20
communities broadband is, at best, a duopoly).=20
"To tie our hands with regard to what we can do=20
with these networks, when we're not going to do=20
anything to preclude [anyone's] access [to them]=20
is crazy," she says. "Legislation should be a=20
last resort." Despite her diplomatic tone,=20
Wilderotter can also hit back when necessary --=20
another quality the telcos require in a=20
spokesperson. She is particularly critical of=20
Google's efforts to promote Net neutrality at a=20
time when the company is widely believed to be=20
assembling its own Internet backbone, and is=20
toying with different access strategies such as=20
Wi-Fi. "Someone needs to ask Google what its real=20
intention is here," she says. "It is easy to put=20
yourself in the content camp and tie the other=20
guys up in a regulatory box while you secretly=20
develop a whole access network to go after their customers."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/20/technology/pluggedin0720.fortune/index.h...
section=3Dmoney_latest

TODAY'S CELL PHONE SYSTEM ARGUES FOR RETAINING NETWORK NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: NewsForge, AUTHOR: James Glass]
[Commentary] For now, Internet service providers=20
are prohibited from discriminating against=20
connections to particular sites on the Internet:=20
they are required to treat traffic to Google=20
exactly the same as traffic to Yahoo! or MSN.=20
This principle of equality is called "network=20
neutrality." However, large telecommunication=20
companies are lobbying congress to scrap the=20
network neutrality rules that have been in place=20
since the birth of the Internet. We don't have to=20
look far to see why this is a bad idea. It turns=20
out that we have a privately owned and controlled=20
network all around us, one that closely mirrors=20
the technical functionality of the Internet, but=20
where there has never been a requirement for net=20
neutrality: the US cellular phone network. Almost=20
all cell phones sold in the developed world have=20
the ability to send and receive SMS (short=20
message service) text messages. SMS is gaining=20
popularity in the US, but only as a way to send=20
quick messages to friends. So why aren't there a=20
wealth of amazing and interactive services=20
available for mobile devices? Why is there no=20
MySpace, Craigslist, Amazon, Flikr, or eBay=20
accessible through this network? Why are cell=20
phone payment systems and email systems nearly=20
nonexistent? Why haven't charities raised money=20
or awareness of their causes through this system?=20
It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers=20
control what services are allowed to use their=20
networks. There is no net neutrality on the cell=20
phone network. This sad state of affairs is what=20
lies in wait if we let commercial interests take=20
control of the Internet. Expect the same type of=20
behavior from AT&T, Comcast, and the rest of the=20
oligarchs. It doesn't take much imagination to=20
imagine Verizon treating their Internet property=20
just like their cell phone network --=20
short-sightedly milking it for all it's worth, at=20
great expense to the public, and to the future.
http://business.newsforge.com/business/06/07/19/206209.shtml?tid=3D138&tid=
=3D3

NET NEUTRALITY ADVOCATES PUT PRESSURE ON LAWMAKERS
[SOURCE: ComputerWorld, AUTHOR: Grant Gross]
Members of the Senate Commerce, Science and=20
Transportation Committee rejected a network=20
neutrality amendment to a wide-ranging broadband=20
bill on June 28, but it turns out that=92s not the=20
last they've heard of the issue. Since that vote,=20
a group of organizations supporting Net=20
neutrality have cranked up the pressure on the 11=20
Republican senators who voted against an=20
amendment that sponsors wanted to add to the=20
broadband bill. Organizations including the=20
liberal MoveOn.org and the conservative Christian=20
Coalition of America and others involved in the=20
SavetheInternet.com coalition have urged members=20
to contact senators and express their displeasure=20
over the Net neutrality vote. Opponents of a Net=20
neutrality law, including large broadband=20
providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp.,=20
say a law isn't needed because they do not plan=20
to block or degrade Web content. A Net neutrality=20
law would prevent them from exploring new=20
business plans such as charging Web sites new=20
fees for priority speeds and a higher quality of=20
service, and those new business plans are needed=20
to build next-generation broadband networks,=20
providers say. Some of the people contacting=20
lawmakers about Net neutrality say it will be an=20
important issue as they vote in the November elections.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=3DviewArticleBasi...
axonomyId=3D13&articleId=3D9001936

TELECOM

BELLSOUTH SHAREHOLDERS APPROVE AT&T MERGER
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Karen Brown]
Taking another step toward the latest telco=20
mega-union, BellSouth shareholders Friday=20
overwhelmingly voted to approve the proposed=20
merger with fellow regional Bell operating=20
company AT&T. Under that plan, BellSouth=20
shareholders will receive 1.325 AT&T shares for=20
each of their BellSouth shares. That=92s a 17.9%=20
premium based on the two companies=92 stock prices=20
as of March 3, the day before the merger was=20
announced. In a release, BellSouth chairman and=20
CEO Duane Ackerman said there has been progress=20
made toward gaining the needed regulatory=20
approvals for the merger, which is expected to=20
close this fall. After the merger closes,=20
BellSouth will be a direct, wholly-owned AT&T subsidiary.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6355378.html?display=3DBreaking+News
* BellSouth shareholders OK sale to AT&T
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8J0PFAG0.htm?sub=3Dapn_tec...
p&chan=3Dtc
* BellSouth Shareholders Vote Overwhelmingly to=20
Approve Merger Agreement With AT&T
http://bellsouth.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=3Dpress_releases&item=3D2897

THE PHONE COMPANIES STILL DON'T GET IT
[SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: ]
[Commentary] Welcome to Telco Land, a strange=20
country where the biggest players talk more and=20
more about innovation yet approach new ideas with=20
baby steps, build little themselves, and when=20
they think about technology are apt to believe=20
it's a threat they have to fight. In fact, in San=20
Antonio, John Kirby, the architect of Project=20
Lightspeed, neatly managed to dispel any=20
confusion about the status of engineering at the=20
company when, after clarifying what it is he=20
does, he explained that when it came to big new=20
projects, "marketing dreams it up, and then I=20
have to design it." The old AT&T had a world-=20
class research operation; its successors -- the=20
new AT&T and Verizon -- don't. One of the signal=20
facts of the communications revolution is that=20
virtually all the new technologies that made it=20
possible were developed outside the phone world.=20
Last year, Verizon's revenue came in at nearly=20
$80 billion. AT&T (without BellSouth or Cingular)=20
had revenue of $44 billion. And yet while Intel=20
spent $5.1 billion last year on research and=20
development, AT&T spent just $130 million. The=20
word "research" doesn't even appear in Verizon's=20
annual report. So isn't it a little odd to hear=20
the CEO of a company the size of AT&T talk about=20
needing to get bigger to have the resources to=20
innovate? To some extent, Verizon and AT&T have=20
been forced to take innovation seriously and move=20
into offering TV and improved broadband. A world=20
in which big telcos competed with big cable=20
companies was something envisioned as far back as=20
the 1996 Telecom Act. It only became a reality=20
when Internet-based phone services allowed cable=20
companies to offer the dreaded "triple play" of=20
television, broadband, and phone, putting AT&T=20
and Verizon on the defensive. But even as they've=20
pushed into this new area, in others the telcos'=20
instinctual response has also been to fight new=20
technologies rather than foster them.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_31/b3995070.htm?chan=3Di...
vation_innovation+%2B+design_top+stories

INDECENCY/CONTENT

SOLDIERS' WORDS MAY TEST PBS LANGUAGE RULES
[SOURCE: New York Times 7/22, AUTHOR: Elizabeth Jensen]
The PBS documentarian Ken Burns has been working=20
for six years on =93The War,=94 a soldier=92s-eye view=20
of World War II, and those who have seen parts of=20
the 14-plus hours say they are replete with salty=20
language appropriate to discussions of the=20
horrors of war. What viewers will see and hear=20
when the series is broadcast in September 2007 is=20
an open question. A new Public Broadcasting=20
Service policy that went into effect immediately=20
when it was issued on May 31 requires producers=20
whose shows are broadcast before 10 p.m. to=20
adhere to tough editing requirements when it=20
comes to coarse language, to comply with=20
tightened rulings on broadcast indecency by the=20
Federal Communications Commission. Most notably,=20
PBS=92s deputy counsel, Paul Greco, wrote in a memo=20
to stations, it is no longer enough simply to=20
bleep out offensive words audibly when the camera=20
shows a full view of the speaker=92s mouth. From=20
now on, the on-camera speaker=92s mouth must also=20
be obscured by a digital masking process, a=20
solution that PBS producers have called=20
cartoonish and clumsy. In addition, profanities=20
expressed in compound words must be audibly=20
bleeped in their entirety so that viewers cannot=20
decipher the words. In the past, PBS required=20
producers to bleep only the offensive part of the=20
compound word. Since May 31, bits of dialogue=20
have been digitally obscured about 100 times in=20
four PBS programs, most often in two episodes of=20
the music documentary =93The Blues.=94 Mr. Burns, in=20
an interview, said he was not worried that his=20
work, which he called a =93very experiential take=20
on the Second World War,=94 would be affected by=20
the policy, noting that while the series includes=20
some =93very graphic violence,=94 there are just two=20
profanities, read off camera. But several other=20
senior public broadcasting executives said =93The=20
War=94 was likely to become a test case for PBS and the FCC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/arts/television/22pbs.html
(requires registration)
* Censorship at work
If strong language accompanies strong documentary=20
content, as it sometimes does, WGBH=92s Frontline=20
would be frequently affected by the FCC=92s war on=20
bad words. Indeed, it already has been. This=20
commentary reflects the personal views of the program=92s executive editor.
http://www.current.org/fcc/fcc0613indecency.shtml
* PBS hopes bleeps and blurred lips keep FCC fines at bay
http://www.current.org/fcc/fcc0612indency.shtml

H--L TO THE CHIEF
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Broadcast networks last week insisted their=20
decision to bleep President Bush's profanity was=20
an appropriate response and not because of the=20
FCC's crackdown on cursing -- even potentially in=20
news shows. During a break at the G-8 summit,=20
President Bush said, =93Get Hezbollah to stop doing=20
this shit, and it's over=94 in a would-be private=20
conversation with British Prime Minister Tony=20
Blair. When it was picked up by an open mike, it=20
became the =93sh-t=94 heard round the world=94 or, in=20
some cases, not heard. ABC, NBC and CBS all=20
bleeped the expletive. Was it out of fear of FCC=20
reprisal? =93No,=94 says CBS spokeswoman Sandy=20
Genelius. =93Fundamentally, we don't air=20
expletives. It is a long-standing policy.=94 =93This=20
was not a policy change,=94 agrees NBC's Barbara=20
Levin. =93We have our own values and policies that=20
predate this or any FCC.=94 Ditto for ABC.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355400.html?display=3DNews
* The President's Bad Word
[Editorial] Because the FCC said its profanity=20
crackdown won't exempt newscasts, broadcasters=20
can never decide to air an indecency in a=20
newscast without fearing a fine. It is highly=20
unlikely the FCC would hammer any station for=20
language in a newscast, but nothing is certain.=20
And that unpredictability steals the journalistic=20
birthright of First Amendment freedom from=20
broadcasters. How ridiculous. How stupid. Some=20
legislators are vitriolic about television=20
indecency, thinking not about what they're=20
espousing but only about how righteous it makes=20
them look in the eyes of voters. We're sure the=20
Founding Fathers never anticipated that, either.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355543.html?display=3DOpinion

TELEVISION INDUSTRY UNVEILING $300M CONTENT CONTROL CAMPAIGN JULY 27
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The television industry plans to unveil a new=20
$300 million content-control consumer awareness=20
campaign soon starting with a briefing for key=20
Senators July 27. Former Motion Picture=20
Association of America President Jack Valenti=20
will direct the dog and pony for the Senate=20
Commerce Committee. The campaign will include TV=20
and other ads, print materials, and a Website=20
that Valenti says will be user-friendly. The goal=20
is to let parents know what technologies are=20
already available to help control their family's=20
TV viewing, including cable set-top controls and=20
the broadcast V-chip/rating system. The other=20
goal is to convince Washington that parental=20
control, not government regulation, is the way to=20
address content criticisms. Broadcasters are=20
battling an FCC indecency crackdown, while the=20
cable industry is hoping to head off calls for=20
mandatory =E0 la carte cable service as a way to=20
let subscribers control content. Both are=20
counting on Valenti's stature with the committee=20
and his experience at creating a ratings system=20
for movies that helped stave off content regulation of that industry.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355483.html

COURT INDECENCY HEARING AUGUST 8
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Federal Appeals Court in New York wants to=20
hear from both sides on the FCC's request to get=20
another crack at four profanity decisions=20
challenged in that court by broadcasters. The=20
court told attorney's this week that it would=20
hear oral arguments from "any party desiring" to=20
weigh in on the FCC remand request and=20
oppositions to that request on August 8 at 2 p.m.=20
Broadcasters challenged the four decisions,=20
saying they were unconstitutional. The court=20
stayed the filing of opening briefs in the case,=20
which had been scheduled for earlier this month,=20
and now won't be able to start until after it=20
hears argument and rules on the remand.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355532.html?display=3DBreaki...
News

CONGRESS TARGETS DECEPTIVE 'SEX' SITES
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache]
Web pages that use innocent words like "Barbie"=20
or "Furby" but actually feature sexual content=20
will be subject to felony charges, thanks to a=20
bill the U.S. Senate approved Thursday. Anyone=20
who includes misleading words or images intended=20
to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly=20
harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20=20
years and fined, the legislation says. The Child=20
Protection and Safety Act represents the most=20
extensive rewriting of federal laws relating to=20
child pornography, sex offender registration and=20
child exploitation in a decade. Supporters say=20
it's necessary to protect the nation's youth. An=20
earlier version of the measure had already=20
cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, which=20
is expected to approve the revised version next=20
week. President Bush endorsed the bill Friday,=20
saying it will provide "law enforcement officials=20
with the tools they need to track those who prey=20
upon children." A key phrase in the legislation=20
promises prison time only if a Webmaster has the=20
"intent to deceive" a casual visitor. David=20
Greene, staff counsel for the nonprofit First=20
Amendment Project, says it could pass=20
constitutional muster if used against Web sites=20
that trick minors into viewing off-color sexual material.
http://news.com.com/Congress+targets+deceptive+sex+sites/2100-1028_3-609...
2.html?tag=3Dnefd.top

GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

GROUP APPEALS GOVERNMENT EAVESDROPPING RULING
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
A coalition of civil liberties groups and=20
technology companies, including Pulver.com and=20
Sun Microsystems, is appealing a federal court=20
ruling that forces Internet service providers to=20
create backdoors for government wiretapping. The=20
coalition on Friday asked the full U.S. Court of=20
Appeals in Washington, D.C., to review a June 9=20
ruling that sided with the Bush administration.=20
That 2-1 ruling said that Internet providers must=20
rewire their networks and follow a complex scheme=20
of eavesdropping regulations. The deadline is set=20
for May 2007. The groups behind the appeal,=20
called an "en banc" rehearing, say they're happy=20
to comply with legitimate court orders. What=20
they're upset about are the cost, difficulty and=20
the privacy concerns involved in building in=20
backdoors for eavesdropping. They argue that the=20
Federal Communications Commission, when approving=20
the requirements, went beyond what federal law=20
actually permits. (The American Council on=20
Education and some of the academic groups dropped=20
out of the appeal, saying they believed the June=20
ruling sufficiently protected their own=20
interests.) No law enforcement agency has=20
identified "any obstacles to intercepting=20
Internet communications in the absence of (the=20
FCC's regulations), and indeed as far as the=20
record on appeal reveals, 100 percent of=20
attempted interceptions of Internet=20
communications to date have been successful," the brief says.
http://news.com.com/Group+appeals+government+eavesdropping+ruling/2100-1...
_3-6097376.html?tag=3Dhtml.alert

SURVEILLANCE WE CAN LIVE WITH
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Sen Arlen Specter (R-PA)]
[Commentary] President Bush's electronic=20
surveillance program has been a festering sore on=20
our body politic since it was publicly disclosed=20
last December. Civil libertarians, myself=20
included, have insisted that the program must be=20
subject to judicial review to ensure compliance=20
with the Fourth Amendment. The president has=20
insisted that he was acting lawfully within his=20
constitutional responsibilities. On its face, the=20
program seems contrary to the plain text of the=20
1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act=20
(FISA), which regulates domestic national=20
security wiretapping. The president argues,=20
however, that his inherent constitutional powers=20
supersede the statute. Without knowing the exact=20
contours of the program, it's impossible to say=20
whether he is right or wrong. But three federal=20
appeals court decisions suggest the president may=20
be right. The integrity of our nation's adherence=20
to the rule of law requires an answer to the=20
question of whether this program is legal. The=20
protection of our nation's security and=20
individual rights requires a modification of the=20
program if it is not lawful as currently=20
fashioned. The challenge, which I have been=20
trying to meet legislatively, is to structure a=20
procedure under which the courts can adjudicate=20
the lawfulness of this highly sensitive program=20
while maintaining the secrecy the president=20
contends is so important. In my opinion, it is=20
intolerable to let this matter drift=20
indefinitely. If someone has a better idea for=20
legislation that would resolve the program's=20
legality or can negotiate a better compromise=20
with the president, I will be glad to listen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR200607...
0578.html
(requires registration)

CABLE

MARYLAND COUNTY FIRES BACK AT VERIZON
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Haugsted]
Montgomery County (MD) officials struck back=20
against a lawsuit by Verizon Communications,=20
accusing the telephone company of attempting to=20
use the courts to get around the county's strict=20
consumer-protection regulations. Verizon filed=20
suit against the regulators late last month in=20
the U.S. District Court for the District of=20
Maryland, alleging that county officials are=20
demanding "burdensome concessions" in return for=20
a county franchise for the telco's Verizon FiOS=20
TV project. But in opposition papers filed=20
Thursday, the county asserted that it seeks=20
competition but also requires competitors to=20
adhere to rules that "[protect] consumers against=20
corporations that refuse to play by the rules and=20
instead seek preferential treatment." County=20
officials have attempted to negotiate an=20
agreement for about one year on terms similar to=20
those observed by Comcast and RCN, the two=20
current video providers in the market. Verizon=20
has demanded "special exemptions from lawful=20
requirements" that other providers meet, the=20
county filing said. County officials added that=20
they also offered to enter an agreement similar=20
to one recently approved by nearby Fairfax County=20
(VA), but Verizon balked. If Verizon wants to=20
engage in court rather than negotiate, the county=20
is prepared to rigorously defend its=20
consumer-protection laws, according to county=20
chief administrative officer Bruce Romer.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6355292.html?display=3DBreaking+News
* For more info see:=20
http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent?page_name=3DMDVerizon
** To see how Verizon is portraying their reason=20
for filing the lawsuit, go to:
http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/md/files/mc_fact_sheet.pdf
http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/md/files/mc_filing.pdf
http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/md/files/mc_press_release_final...
*** To see the County=92s public statements in response, go to:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/statements/ST_details.asp?StID=
=3D146
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR_details.asp?PrID=3D...
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR_details.asp?PrID=3D...

CAB HAS QUESTIONS FOR NIELSEN
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Moss]
The cable industry Friday sent Nielsen Media=20
Research a list of its concerns about the planned=20
tracking of viewership of TV commercials starting=20
this fall. After consulting with its members, the=20
Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau compiled =93a=20
master document=94 outlining questions that need to=20
be answered before Nielsen starts releasing=20
average national commercial-minute ratings, at=20
the behest of the broadcast networks, in=20
November. The CAB=92s biggest concerns include how=20
predictable and precise the commercial-ratings data will be.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6355435.html?display=3DBreaking+News

PUBLIC BROADCASTING

SENATE COMMITTEE FUNDS CPB'S READY TO LEARN, DTV
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday=20
approved a 2007 budget for the Corporation for=20
Public Broadcasting that leaves intact money for=20
the digital transition, the Ready to Learn=20
initiative, and arguably most importantly, the=20
two-year forward funding process. That's=20
according to CPB President Patricia Harrison, who=20
said CPB was grateful for the money. Forward=20
funding is an attempt to insulate CPB from a=20
politicized budget process, though even with that=20
forward-funding the exercise has become something=20
of a posterchild for politicized budget=20
processes, with Republicans attempting to gut its=20
appropriation, claiming government-subsidized=20
liberal bias, and Democrats holding rallies to=20
combat the cuts, which have mostly, ultimately,=20
been restored. Under the bill, CPB will get $400=20
million in 2009. In the nearer term, for 2007 it=20
will get $36 million for system interconnection=20
upgrades, $29.7 million for the digital=20
conversion, and $24.2 million for Ready to Learn,=20
which has been in the crosshairs -- despite=20
administration support for the program -- ever=20
since its Postcards From Buster series got some=20
Washington knickers in a twist over its "two=20
mommies" episode. Buster is no longer funded=20
under that program, which has refocused on more=20
curriculum-centric early childhood education.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355274.html?display=3DBreaki...
News
* Statement by CPB President and CEO Pat Harrison
http://www.cpb.org/pressroom/release.php?prn=3D556

CPB BOARD ADOPTS FISCAL YEAR 2007 OPERATING BUDGET
[SOURCE: Corporation for Public Broadcasting press release]
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of=20
Directors adopted a fiscal year 2007 operating=20
budget of $412 million, which will provide for=20
significant investments in the more than 1,000=20
local public stations, programming and content,=20
technology, as well as the delivery of=20
programming and content on new media platforms.=20
The FY 2007 budget, which goes into effect on=20
October 1, 2007, focuses on the priorities set=20
out in CPB's goals and objectives: local services=20
and content; national content and services;=20
bolstering support for public broadcasting, and=20
long term system-wide planning. Following the=20
statutorily prescribed formula, CPB will=20
administer the FY07 funds as follows: 1) Support=20
for Public Television ($276 million) which=20
includes $200.25 million in Direct Television=20
Grants and $75.75 million for television=20
programming (support for national programming,=20
including projects for children and diverse=20
audiences.) 2) Support for Public Radio ($92=20
million) which includes: $62.30 million in Radio=20
Community Service Grants (which go directly to=20
stations), $21.97 million in National Program=20
Production & Acquisition Grants, and $7.73=20
million for the Radio Program Fund. 3) General=20
System Support ($24 million) which includes=20
support for industry-wide services such as TV=20
interconnection grants, music copyright fees, and=20
audience and program research, minority consortia, and ITVS administration.
http://www.cpb.org/pressroom/release.php?prn=3D557

FUTURE OF TELEVISION

TELEVISION EVERYWHERE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Allison Romano]
At a time when TV networks and advertisers alike=20
are desperate to increase -- or at least maintain=20
-- market share, reaching viewers in new places=20
has never been more urgent. At home, audiences=20
are distracted by the Internet, video-on-demand=20
and DVRs, but in certain public spots --=20
airports, elevators, gas stations -- the audience=20
is quite captive. Some of the last vestiges of=20
TV-free space are vanishing as marketers=20
recognize the value of the consumer=92s inability=20
to turn away or tune out. Technology has made it=20
easier and more affordable to reach audiences on=20
the go, with cheaper flat-panel TVs hitting the=20
market and wireless networks enabling networks to=20
update frequently and localize content down to a=20
ZIP code. And, as viewers themselves become more=20
accustomed to watching TV on portable devices,=20
such offerings are accepted as welcome=20
distractions from the monotony of food shopping=20
or pumping gas. These =93out-of-home networks,=94 or=20
=93place-based media,=94 work efficiently because of=20
the absence of competing messages and the=20
accessibility of viewers. CBS calls such placements the =93outernet.=94
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355394.html?display=3DFeature

LESSON'S FROM USDTV'S DEMISE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John M. Higgins]
Is there any way to make money from the all-new=20
capacity created by the switch to digital=20
broadcasting? The conversion to digital gives=20
every station in the country a tremendous=20
expansion of capacity. In the same amount of=20
spectrum occupied by a conventional analog=20
signal, a broadcaster can fit a high-definition=20
feed of its main station and still have space to=20
create three additional channels. A station that=20
chooses not to broadcast an HD signal can create=20
up to five additional channels. In one sense,=20
this is a tremendous windfall in an industry that=20
faces slim growth prospects in its core business.=20
Think of it as a government grant of ritzy=20
beachfront real estate given exclusively to=20
people who already live in the neighborhood. The=20
downside is that creating that much new property=20
out of thin air produces a glut. Digital puts=20
more TV real estate on the market than there are=20
immediate viewers or advertising dollars to=20
support it. =93Unless broadcasters create a viable=20
economic model, the industry may have spent=20
billions upgrading stations without any obvious=20
return on investment. If that=92s true, it may a=20
classic case of =93be careful what you ask for, you=20
might just get it!,=94 says Bear, Stearns & Co. media analyst Victor Miller.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355397.html?display=3DNews

QUICKLY

MEDIA COVERAGE MAY BE WHAT HOLDS COMPANIES TO ACCOUNT
[SOURCE: MarketWatch, AUTHOR: Thomas Kostigen]
[Commentary] New research shows media coverage,=20
more than policies or shareholder activism,=20
forces companies to behave. "The media seems to=20
exert pressure on corporate managers and=20
regulators, forcing companies to behave more in=20
the interest of shareholders," says Luigi=20
Zingales, professor of entrepreneurship and=20
finance at the University of Chicago Graduate=20
School of Business. In a research paper entitled=20
"Candid Camera," he says press coverage of=20
corporate violations even increases the=20
probability such actions will be reversed.=20
Zingales points to the case of Richard Grasso,=20
the former chairman of the New York Stock=20
Exchange who in 2003 lost his job when his lavish=20
pay was exposed. "Although all directors of the=20
NYSE had voted in favor of his compensation, once=20
the information became public -- and even the=20
most pro-business newspapers characterized=20
Grasso's compensation in a very negative light --=20
many directors changed their position," he says.=20
When the media reports a story, reputations are=20
at stake. And this is what people respond to: the=20
threat of being associated with something=20
negative. Other research has shown that corporate=20
managers are constrained in their behavior by the=20
impact that their actions have on their=20
reputation vis-=E0-vis their future employers or=20
the capital market in general. But Zingales, in=20
research conducted in conjunction with professors=20
at the University of Toronto and Russia's Center=20
for Economic and Financial Research, shows that=20
reputation is an effective constraint only if the=20
future employers or partners can learn about actions.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=3Dnewsfinder&siteid=
=3Dgoogle&guid=3D%7B170D9BE0-8CD2-4AE9-AF95-E744BE4380F4%7D&keyword=3D

TWO VIEWS OF THE SAME NEWS FIND OPPOSITE BIASES
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Shankar Vedantam]
Partisans, it turns out, don't just arrive at=20
different conclusions; they see entirely=20
different worlds. The tendency to see bias in the=20
news -- now the raison d'etre of much of the=20
blogosphere -- is such a reliable indicator of=20
partisan thinking that researchers coined a term,=20
"hostile media effect," to describe the sincere=20
belief among partisans that news reports are=20
painting them in the worst possible light. The=20
hostile media effect seems to apply only to news=20
sources that strive for balance. News reports=20
from obviously biased sources usually draw fewer=20
charges of bias. Partisans, it turns out, find it=20
easier to countenance obvious propaganda than=20
news accounts that explore both sides.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR200607...
0512.html
(requires registration)

MEN, SIGNING OFF
[SOURCE: Washington Post 7/23, AUTHOR: Paul Farhi]
Their departure reflects the transformation of TV=20
news from a "glamour" business to a low-wage,=20
no-growth field with limited career potential,=20
say Paul Farhi's sources. "With TV stations=20
laboring under the same financial pressures as=20
others in the mainstream media, men might be=20
discouraged by television news and might be=20
finding better opportunities elsewhere," he writes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR200607...
0295.html?nav=3Drss_artsandliving/television
(requires registration)

CDT, GROUPS OPPOSE VOTE ON WEAK DATA BREACH BILL
[SOURCE: Center for Democracy & Technology]
CDT has joined with a group of public interest=20
advocates to oppose a reported attempt by the=20
House of Representatives to pass a weak data=20
breach bill that would roll back important=20
consumer protections. In a letter sent to House=20
leaders, CDT, Consumers Union, the Consumer=20
Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest=20
Research Group, Consumer Action and the Privacy=20
Rights Clearinghouse, urged lawmakers not to vote=20
on H.R. 3997, a Financial Services Committee bill=20
which does more to protect banks than consumers.=20
Instead the groups urged lawmakers to vote on=20
H.R. 4127, an Energy and Commerce Committee bill=20
which contains stronger provisions for notifying=20
consumers after data breaches and enables=20
consumers to find out what is in their data broker files.
Joint Letter: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20060721breachletter.pdf

BUSH'S TACTIC OF REFUSING LAWS IS PROBED
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Michael Abramowitz]
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled=20
by the American Bar Association is sharply=20
criticizing the use of "signing statements" by=20
President Bush that assert his right to ignore or=20
not enforce laws passed by Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR200607...
0511.html
(requires registration)

E-RATE ELIGIBLE SERVICES
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
The FCC is asking for comment on an updated list=20
of services eligible for universal service=20
support. Comments are due August 4; reply comments are due August 14.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-109A1.pdf

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
[SOURCE: White House press release]
President George Bush intends to nominate Sharon=20
Lynn Hays, of Virginia, to be Associate Director=20
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.=20
Dr. Hays currently serves as Chief of Staff at=20
the Office of Science and Technology Policy.=20
Earlier in her career, she served as Staff=20
Director of the Subcommittee on Research of the=20
United States House of Representatives Committee=20
on Science. Dr. Hays received her bachelor's=20
degree from the University of California and her=20
PhD in biochemistry from Stanford University.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060720-6.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060721-4.html

BEYOND CABLE. BEYOND DSL.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Dionne Searcey dionne.searcey( at )wsj.com=
]
A look at what higher-capacity fiber-optic lines=20
can mean for consumers -- namely, connection=20
speeds that are more than 50 times faster than=20
DSL and cable links. Yes, yes, I'm thinking the=20
same thing: with this service I'd be able to=20
deliver you Headlines of events that haven't even happened yet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115333830442911450.html?mod=3Dtodays_us_...
_journal_report
(requires subscription)

COLLABORATIVE GRANTS IN MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS
[SOURCE: Social Science Research Council]
The SSRC is pleased to launch the first round of=20
its small grants project for academic-advocacy=20
collaboration in the media and communications=20
field. The first round will provide grants of up=20
to $7,500 for research that supports advocacy,=20
organizing, policy and/or campaign uses in the=20
media and communications field in the US. The=20
grants are intended for short-term work,=20
completable and usable by advocacy partners=20
within the next 4-12 months. Up to 5 grants will=20
be awarded in this first round. In future rounds,=20
the submission process will be conducted online,=20
with awards made on a rolling basis. Proposals=20
for this first round of grants must be received=20
by email by 5 pm, Aug.9 Selections will be=20
announced by Aug.28. In this first round,=20
proposals must be: 1) Submitted by a US-based=20
nonprofit advocacy, organizing or community group=20
working on media and/or telecommunications=20
issues. (Groups with nonprofit fiscal sponsorship=20
are also eligible.) 2) Structured as a=20
partnership with an academic researcher based at=20
a university, college or other research=20
institution. This can include advanced graduate students.
http://www.ssrc.org/programs/media/collaborative_grants/smallgrants.page
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------