On March 18, Sen Barack Obama delivered a speech called "A More Perfect Union." Many have viewed the speech as a challenge to the nation to address our "racial stalemate." Beginning today, the Benton Foundation is taking the opportunity to host a dialogue on the intersection of race and telecommunications policy.
[Commentary] One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning. In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe. The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics. Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver. One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces. Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences. The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August. It’s also hard to overstate the role the talented Clinton camp plays in shaping the campaign narrative, first by subtly lowering the bar for the performance necessary to remain in the race, and then by keeping the focus on Obama’s relationships with a political fixer and a controversial pastor in Illinois.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
[Commentary] Although he did not write or deliver it, Yaki was nervous before Sen Barack Obama gave his "More Perfect Union" speech last week. The press' treatment of the speech would dictate whether the it could erase the negative environment in which race had been brought up in this election campaign. In many ways, it was not a political speech. There are parts that undoubtedly will be taken out of context for political hit ads. But if you haven't read it, you can't form an informed opinion of it. If you didn't see the whole speech, then you can't understand the context and totality as a whole. But were the media listening to Obama's speech? Did they understand their awesome responsibility in this landmark election to let the candidates debate and define the issues or were they too busy giving themselves pats on the back for outing the senator to address the issue of race? A vigorous free press is a fundamental requirement of democracy. But Yaki has a hard time imagining that a report on yet another person who may have said the wrong thing on behalf of any candidate, who is not the candidate, and whose remarks are disavowed by a candidate, deserves prime time for an entire news cycle. It's time to move on. It's time to get back to the issues. It's time to get back to electing a president.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/20/EDDEVMQP6.DTL
Several broadcast groups are experiencing a recent spending lift thanks to contentious political races, according to a new report. Station groups from the larger Hearst-Argyle to the smaller Gray TV appear to be profiting from races in Indiana, North Carolina and Wisconsin. And it's not from the flush dollars in the Democratic Presidential battle--yet.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArti...
Sen John McCain (R-AZ) has condemned the influence of "special interest lobbyists," yet dozens of lobbyists have political and financial ties to his presidential campaign -- particularly from telecommunications companies, an industry he helps oversee in the Senate. Of the 66 current or former lobbyists working for the Arizona senator or raising money for his presidential campaign, 23 have lobbied for telecommunications companies in the past decade, Senate lobbying disclosures show. Sen McCain has netted about $765,000 in political donations from those telecom lobbyists, their spouses, colleagues at their firms and their telecom clients during the past decade, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance records shows. Sen McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the telecom industry and the Federal Communications Commission. He has repeatedly pushed industry-backed legislation since 2000, particularly during a second stint as committee chairman from 2003 through 2005. His efforts to eliminate taxes and regulations on telecommunications services won him praise from industry executives. People who lobbied for telecom companies on those issues include McCain's campaign manager, his deputy manager, his finance chief, his top unpaid political adviser and his Senate chief of staff. Telecom companies have paid the lobbying firms that employed those top five McCain advisers more than $4.4 million since 1999, lobbying records show.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080324/1a_bottomstrip24_dom....
* A look at GOP senator's telecom ties
People who work, advise or raise campaign money for Sen John McCain who have lobbied for telecommunications companies since 1999.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080324/a_mccain_lobbylist24....
* McCain pushed tax ban backed by telecoms
In the fall of 2003, telecommunications companies lobbied for a bill that would ban state and local taxes on Internet access, and they had support in high places. Sen. John McCain, who at the time was chairman of the committee overseeing telecommunications issues, helped write the bill that would outlaw those taxes. McCain's committee sent its version of the bill to the full Senate on Sept. 29, 2003. Four days earlier, AT&T Wireless executives gave McCain's 2004 Senate re-election campaign $10,500, according to campaign-finance records. AT&T Wireless, which offers Internet connections like other telecom companies, says in its 2003 disclosure report to the Senate that it lobbied on the bill.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080324/a_mccaininside24.art.htm
While Federal Communications Commission appointments might not be the plum posts for presidential job-seekers, the person selected has a wide latitude in setting the telecommunications agenda for what is one of the most important government positions in the "knowledge economy." Even as there are still three candidates vying to be leader of the free world, it's not too early to begin speculation who would be chairman of the FCC. If Sen. Hillary Clinton takes the prize, Susan Ness is the name bandied about among the tele-cognesceti. Aside from being close to the Clintons, Ness makes an attractive candidate for the commission's top job as it would allow the first female president to select the first female FCC chairman. If Sen. Barack Obama wins, his campaign and Senate staffs are dotted with people who have close ties to the FCC. Connecting those dots, however, is Julius Genachowski, a former aide to former-FCC Chairmen Reed Hundt and Bill Kennard and a close friend of Obama's since they attended Harvard Law School. He is a major fundraiser for the senator. Aside from commission experience, Genachowski was an executive at Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp. and a managing director at digital media specialist Rock Creek Ventures and is a special adviser to the private-equity group General Atlantic. Other names associated with Obama include his policy director Karen Kornbluh, who also worked at the commission under Hundt and Kennard, and Don Gipps, an FCC veteran who was former Vice President Al Gore's domestic policy adviser and is now a top executive at Level 3, an Internet "backbone" operator. Larry Stcikling, a former chief of the FCC Common Carrier Bureau and an Obama campaign worker, also has been mentioned for the post. The two Democrats on the FCC -- Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein -- also can't be ruled out. If Sen. John McCain wins, possibilities include former staffer and current Disney lobbyist Bill Bailey, Google counsel Pablo Chavez, FCC staffer Maureen McLaughlin, Rick Davis, the campaign manager for McCain 2008, and Charles Black, a top political adviser to McCain's campaign. Black is a lobbyist who counts AT&T among his clients, while Davis has lobbied for Verizon and SBC.
http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN2429880620080324
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) hasn't been in Congress as long as his rivals in the race for the White House, but he has stepped into some media issues that illuminate how he might govern the industry should he succeed in his bid for the presidency. Sen Obama has joined with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to question how media consolidation could affect minority media ownership. He also has suggested TV is responsible for the "coarsening of our culture." Some of Mr. Obama's criticism is of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin, whom Mr. Obama has known since both attended Harvard University Law School. Of the three presidential candidates, Mr. Obama is the only one to prominently showcase media issues on his campaign Web site. Perhaps in a sign of the importance he places on the issue, the Web site lists detailed positions on a number of media issues.
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/03/candidates_media_stance_sen_ba.php
(requires free registration)
The completion of the 700MHz wireless spectrum auction on Thursday should bring more choice and new types of services for end users, although the results were not as rosy as some observers had hoped for. The new networks are unlikely to deliver cheaper services for users as some had hoped, however, at least not for a while. The operators will need to pay off the billions of dollars they pledged for the spectrum, in addition to the investment in the new networks. Nor did the auction result in completely new types of companies entering the wireless market, which had been another possibility when the auctions were announced. Some said they expected all along that the incumbent operators would dominate.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/21/Wireless-auction-yields-mixed-...
* 700 MHz Aftermath: Assessing A Rather Complicated Result — But Not A Disaster As Some Maintain.
[Commentary] "I think Commissioner Adelstein gives a fair assessment when he says we won on revenue and openness and lost on diversity and competition."
http://www.wetmachine.com//item/1119
Since the winners of the government spectrum auction were released Thursday, analysts have been working overtime on their spreadsheets to figure out who got the best deals. The latest from Rebecca Arbogast, who follows the market closely for Stifel Nicolaus, concludes that Verizon, which went into the auction well behind AT&T in the amount of spectrum it owned, got the best deal. It purchased a total of 8.5 billion MHz pops for $9.36 billion. That comes out to an average $1.10 per MHz pop. That average is made up of the nationwide C block, which was relatively inexpensive, as there was little competition, and some very competitive local licenses. AT&T bought far less capacity for a much higher price. It bought a total of 2.1 billion MHz pops for $6.64 billion. That represents $3.15 per MHz pop. The most expensive license was in the Chicago area. After heated bidding among Verizon, AT&T and US Cellular, the regional B block license for Chicago was sold to Verizon for $892 million, or $9.19 per MHz pop. The other expensive regions included Seattle ($7.79 per MHz pop to AT&T), Oklahoma City ($7.32 per MHz pop to Verizon); Pierce, Wis. ($6.51 per MHz pop to AT&T), Milwaukee ($6.17 per MHz pop to AT&T), and Philadelphia ($6.05 per MHz pop to AT&T). The companies with the third and fourth most winning bids in the auction were Dish Network and Qualcomm. They bought spectrum that is designed mainly for one-way broadcasts, presumably of wireless television service. As this spectrum is less useful, it sold for far lower prices than the spectrum suitable for cellphone calls.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/verizon-licks-its-cheap-megaher...
(requires registration)
Wireless network equipment makers may see a flurry of new orders in the next two years after a $19 billion government auction of wireless airwaves, analysts said. The top two U.S. mobile services AT&T Inc and Verizon Wireless were the biggest spenders in the auction. Equipment makers that may benefit include Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent, Nortel Networks, Nokia Siemens, owned by Nokia and Siemens AG, Motorola Inc, China's Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and ZTE Corp, analysts said. While some analysts see the outcome as less of a boost than if a newcomer like Google Inc had won spectrum in the auction that ended this week, others say the auction may lead to spending of about $9 billion on network gear in coming years. AT&T, which spent over $6 billion in the auction, and Verizon Wireless, which spent more than $9 billion, said they would use the airwaves to expand data services, which include everything from Web surfing to music downloads.
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN2043819220080321
© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.
