March 2008

THE BUZZ ON THE BUS: PINCHED, PRESS STEPS OFF
As Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama debated in Cleveland on a snowy evening in late February, 650 journalists descended on the city to follow every jab and parry, albeit on enormous televisions in two makeshift filing centers. But early the next morning, as the two candidates set off for engagements across Ohio and Texas, representatives of only two dozen or so news organizations tagged along. For most of the others, the price of admission — more than $2,000 for just one person to travel on Mr. Obama’s charter flights that day — was too steep, in an era in which newspapers in particular are slashing costs and paring staff, and with no end in sight to a primary campaign that began more than a year ago. Among the newspapers that have chosen not to dispatch reporters to cover the two leading Democratic candidates on a regular basis are USA Today, the nation’s largest paper, as well as The Boston Globe, The Dallas Morning News, The Houston Chronicle, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Baltimore Sun, The Miami Herald and The Philadelphia Inquirer (at least until the Pennsylvania primary, on April 22, began to loom large). Traveling campaign reporters say they try to do more than just regurgitate raw information or spoon-fed news of the day, which anyone who watches speeches on YouTube can do. The best of them track the evolution and growth (or lack thereof) of candidates; spot pandering and inconsistencies or dishonesty; and get a measure of the candidate that could be useful should he or she become president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26bus.html?ref=todayspaper
(requires registration)

DOES THE WEB DESERVE THE POWER IT GAINED TO INFLUENCE POLITICS?
[Commentary] As with Nixon going to China, it might take an Obama, with solid youth-tech cred, to suggest any downside to the online world. Considering the rapidly growing number of Americans who rely on the Web to follow the election and judge its players -- even if mostly via mainstream-media sites -- it's a good time to look at all the Web does very well with politics, and at what it messes up. Controversial videos of politicians may enjoy the popularity they do because they confirm ideas already held about the politicians involved, in which case blaming YouTube confuses cause and effect. But there is a danger that our politics might be shaped by insignificant events that assume an importance merely by having been caught on tape. It's not just video that is being refashioned in the Internet age, but words, too, through blogs and other widely democratized forms of expression. Blogs are enormously useful, if only because of the way they allow communities with similar politics to follow the ups and down of a campaign as a group. One of the biggest electoral impacts of the Web involves one of its earliest applications: email. It's an easy and effective way for people to share ideas with friends about what might be going on with the candidates. By operating person-to-person and under the radar, email can have an enormous and injurious influence before anyone even notices. Suggesting that there is both good and bad with the Web and politics isn't to say they exist in equal amounts. Say what one will about the shortcomings of blogs, I can't imagine going back in time to a world where a relatively small number of newspapers and magazines -- even though by and large they were very good ones -- had an effective monopoly on what did and didn't get printed about a campaign.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120648590555263733.html?mod=todays_us_ma...
(requires subscription)

WIRELESS SPECTRUM WINNER VERIZON NOW GETS TO INTERPRET 'OPEN ACCESS'
With its winning $4.7 billion bid last week, Verizon Wireless didn't just stake claim to beachfront wireless property, it also grabbed control of the guest list to the open-access party. The government, in opening up the coveted swath of the spectrum, essentially said the winner must allow consumers to use any compatible device or software on it as long as it doesn't harm the network. But analysts said the open-access playground comes with restrictions and Verizon Wireless, as the winner, will be the one making the rules and setting the schedule. The open-access rules are designed to loosen that grip, giving way to more products, innovation and competition. After first fighting the rules, Verizon Wireless has apparently already warmed up to them, and is set to apply them to the rest of its existing network, even before it gets access to the new spectrum. But with Verizon in a gatekeeper's role, analysts and others say they expect an incremental improvement in the overall wireless landscape. Consumer advocates and tech entrepreneurs said the Federal Communications Commission wasted an opportunity by not requiring the winner to lease airwaves to competitors. However, Verizon Wireless has committed to selling wholesale access to its current network, with pricing based on customer usage, and will presumably apply the same model to the new spectrum.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_8700215

DISH'S STRATEGY STOKES CONCERNS
With a swath of wireless spectrum in hand, Dish Network Corp. is moving toward eliminating a weakness in the satellite-TV business: the inability to offer on-demand content without outside help. But the weaker spectrum it purchased suggests Dish is tiptoeing toward that goal rather than making any large strides. It is widely believed that Dish will use the licenses won from the Federal Communications Commission's recently concluded spectrum auction to build a wireless network that could nearly cover the nation. But the spectrum by itself isn't strong enough to power a full wireless network without complicated tweaking, leaving some to wonder what Dish's ultimate goal is. Satellite-TV providers have been pressured to provide on-demand content as phone and cable rivals expand their offerings. But satellite-TV providers are unable to offer two-way communications services because they broadcast from satellites in space and lack an in-ground network. Subscribers can't order a movie or TV show and get it instantaneously. That is a problem as consumers change their viewing habits. Dish may be looking at its wireless spectrum as a possible solution, but there are complications. The company purchased what is known as "unpaired" spectrum, which generally allows for one-way communication, and which isn't ideal for a full-service wireless-broadband network, according to analysts. Dish could create a wireless network focused on providing on-demand content to supplement its existing service. It could use a customer's existing pipe for two-way communication.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649173740964183.html?mod=todays_us_ma...
(requires subscription)