November 2009

Droid vs. iPhone: It's Really About the Carrier

The clock is ticking to the release of the Droid, and its smaller brother the Droid Eris, this Friday from Verizon. The media is filled with rhetoric drawing comparisons between the Droid and the iPhone. Those stories miss the point that the real battle isn't between the Droid and the iPhone, but between Verizon and AT&T. AT&T has faced a fairly steady stream of complaints from customers--the majority of those complaints coming from the dedicated legions of iPhone users. There have been complaints that the battery can't be replaced, complaints that the data service is slow, complaints that 3G access is dysfunctional, complaints that the device couldn't do MMS messaging, and more. AT&T and Apple have also been the focus of controversy related to rejecting the Google Voice app, and trying to block third-party VoIP solutions. iPhone users love their iPhones, but they aren't quite as dedicated to the wireless provider the iPhone is tied to. Verizon seems to be the number one wireless carrier in the country for a reason. It has a better quality network and higher customer satisfaction, and it is capitalizing on those attributes in its marketing. In preparation for the Droid launch, Verizon has two clever campaigns. The iDon't ad campaign is aimed at spotlighting the deficiencies in the iPhone and highlighting the fact that Droid has those capabilities. The other campaign plays off of Apple's "There's an app for that" iPhone campaign to compare maps of the 3G coverage of Verizon vs. AT&T. Do you want to know why you can't find a 3G connection with AT&T? There's a map for that.

Introducing The Texas Tribune

A Q&A with Texas Tribune CEO and Editor Evan Smith. The publication is not just a new source for news and information; it is a new model for multi-platform nonprofit news. In fact, Smith sees the Tribune as a new kind of "public media." He wants the Texas Tribune to build community, to be a central hub for ideas and innovation in Texas, and to inspire citizens to engage in the world around them. It's a big, bold project that has built upon the successes and failures of numerous other nonprofit journalism ventures.

BroadbandCensus.com
Clyde's of Gallery Place
707 7th Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
8 a.m.

Increasingly, access to broadband is being seen as a civil right. Is the promise of broadband technology truly available to all? What are the best ways to "move the needle" in this country on broadband adoption? Globally, what lessons have and can be learned from other nations' experiences in ameliorating the digital divide?

Panelists:

  • Robert Cornell, Washington Island Electric Cooperative
  • Karen Archer Perry, Director, Connected Communities Team, Knight Center of Digital Excellence


Alliance for Public Technology
The National Education Association
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC
November 19, 2009
2:00 P.M. Program
5:30 P.M. Awards Reception
http://www.apt.org/events/2009/2009_nbrc_hadden_form.pdf

The Susan G. Hadden Pioneer Award is presented each year for "For Pioneering Efforts in Telecommunications and Consumer Access." This year's program also marks the transition of the Alliance for Public Technology (APT) to the National Broadband Resource Center (NBRC), re-imagining the APT mission of "connecting each to all." While the mission remains the same, the core focus of the NBRC will shift from deployment to adoption and innovation.

2:00 P.M. CONSUMER NEEDS & TECHNOLOGY VISIONS

SPEAKERS:

  • Rick Cimerman, National Cable and Telecommunications Association
  • Debbie Goldman, Communications Workers of America
  • Link Hoewing, Verizon
  • Karyne Jones, National Caucus and Center on Black Aged
  • Jonathan Linkous, American Telemedicine Association
  • Sheri Steinig, Generations United
  • Donald Mathis, Community Action Partnership
  • Jim Mueller, Wireless RERC at Georgia Tech
  • Representative, National Education Association
  • Kenneth Peres, APT-NBRC

Honorees:

The Honorable James Clyburn
U. S. House of Representatives (D-SC)

Judith Harkins
Gallaudet University

Mark Lloyd
Federal Communications Commission

For more information, email apt@apt.org or call 202-263-2970



Rainbow PUSH Coalition
Capital Hilton Hotel
1001 16th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Nov 19-20, 2009
www.rainbowpush.org



Nov 3, 2009 (Network Neutrality; Spectrum for Broadband)

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 2009

Today the Media Ownership discussion continues at the FCC and the NTIA hosts the Online Safety and Technology Working Group Meeting http://bit.ly/Nhfs1


NETWORK NEUTRALITY
   One flew over the Internet
   Biggest Network Neutrality boosters question FCC proposal
   Did Congress really give the FCC power to protect the Net?
   Stop The Madness: The Internet Has To Be Regulated
   Crowdsourcing AT&T's Anti-Net Neutrality Campaign
   NCTA, NBCU: FCC BitTorrent Order 'Shackles' ISPs

NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN
   Broadcasters Defend Their Spectrum
   Be Wary Of FCC's Cash-For-Spectrum Plan
   National Broadband Plan Policy Evaluation
   The Role of Broadband in Improving Public Safety Communications and Emergency Response
   5 million Star Trek pirates vs. 1 FCC broadband plan
   FCC Urged To Protect Web Entertainment
   Four Questions for the FCC's Scott Wallsten, lead economist for the broadband plan

THE STIMULUS
   Consortiums will be likely winners of broadband stimulus funding
   Montana Governor criticized for backing single firm on $70M Internet stimulus project

CYBERSECURITY
   Restlessness Grows Absent Cyber Czar Pick
   Collins details plan for cybersecurity director

OWNERSHIP
   FCC Wades Into Media Ownership
   Copps Kicks Off Media Ownership Review
   Will Comcast/NBC Need FCC Approval? And How Would That Play Out?
   Buying Into Big Media's Recovery

TELECOM
   Why Google Doesn't Like Its Phone Bill
   FCC Asks for Comment on Rural Health Care Petition
   FCC said to draft AT&T-Centennial approval order
   House Panel To Examine Driving, Texting

CONTENT
   House, Senate Judiciary Committees Want To Orchestrate Radio Per-Performance Fee Negotiations
   Why Subscription TV From Apple Could Shake Cable's Tree
   Open The Floodgates: Greater Access To Content Will Raise Studio Profits

MORE ONLINE ...
   Freedom of the Press
   The Future For Journalism Will Always Embrace Change
   Health Care, Afghan War and the Economy Drive News Narrative
   Love affair with Google ends
   Interoperability Requires Improvements in Governance
   Chicago Academy of Advanced Technology Opens

back to top

NETWORK NEUTRALITY

ONE FLEW OVER THE INTERNET
[SOURCE: TelephonyOnline, AUTHOR: Joe McGarvey]
[Commentary] The network neutrality dispute, when reduced to its core elements, is nothing more than another round in the protracted battle between Netheads and Bellheads. Long before the Internet went commercial in the early-to-mid-1990s and later matured into a global distribution network for commerce and communications, network engineers had been feuding with telecommunications engineers over the best way to build networks and deliver services. In the blink-and-you'll-miss-it environment that marks today's communications industry, it's comforting to know that some things stay the same: The so-called Netheads and Bellheads are still at it. In fact, it could be argued that the fighting is as fierce as ever — and the stakes have never been higher. This latest struggle between Netheads and Bellheads has been most prominently represented by a three-letter acronym: IMS. The IP multimedia subsystem carries the connotation of being either essential or superfluous, depending on the perspective. Bellheads, of course, see the IMS architecture as a successor to the signaling system seven (SS7) infrastructure that delivered a mechanism for gracefully managing the control side of the PSTN. The SS7 network (a packet-based network, by the way), created a universal standard that enabled carriers to offer their customers the ability to communicate — using voice or messaging — with virtually any other owner of a phone, regardless of the carrier that offered the service. From the Bellhead standpoint, IMS represents the ability to bring to the public Internet the reliability and predictability of circuit-based communications systems, as well as enable interoperability across carrier networks. Netheads, or backers of an Internet-based computing model, see IMS in a superfluous light, adding complexity and costs that will only hinder innovation. At the extreme, Netheads view IMS as nefarious, a blight upon a pristine ecosystem that will empower the owners of local transport pipes to erect toll booths or road blocks between ISPs and subscribers.
benton.org/node/29379 | TelephonyOnline
Recommend this Headline
back to top


BIGGEST NETWORK NEUTRALITY BOOSTERS QUESTION FCC PROPOSAL
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Cecilia Kang]
The strength or weakness of a proposed open Internet rule, known as network neutrality, could rest in the interpretation of just one word: "reasonable." The way that word is defined can tilt fortunes in the Web economy and set the course for how consumers use the Web today and in the future, proponents of the policy say. Now, a group of law professors and public interest groups are telling the Federal Communications Commission that its proposed rules don't sufficiently define what that word means for Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon as they management traffic on their networks. In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sent this morning, the legal scholars -- all long-time proponents of net neutrality -- are asking the agency to clear up ambiguity on "reasonable network management" practices in a draft of rules. "We submit this extraordinary early letter only to flag what we believe are two ambiguities in the Notice that we hope can be addressed early to provide a clearer foundation for comments," wrote Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and chairman of public interest group Free Press, Stanford University Law professors Larry Lessig and Barbara van Shewick; Yale Law School's Jack Balkin; South Texas College of Law Professor John Blevins; and University of Louisville School of Law's Jim Chen. "We trust Genachowski," said Wu. "But this is a historic rule and this letter was in the spirit of looking at other FCCs and creating a stronger rule that sets a policy that lasts longer as opposed to something that is highly dependent on the whims of a commission in power."
benton.org/node/29378 | Washington Post | Read the letter | GigaOm | MediaPost
Recommend this Headline
back to top


DID CONGRESS REALLY GIVE THE FCC POWER TO PROTECT THE NET?
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
With the release of the Federal Communications Commission's new Internet nondiscrimination proposals (that is, network neutrality), one vexing question continues to vex. Does the FCC have the legal authority to regulate access to the Internet? The issue came up again this week, and not just because of the net neutrality proceeding; Comcast, which is suing the FCC for its sanctions against the ISP for last year's P2P throttling, told a federal court hearing the case that the answer is no. Comcast's network management practices "were designed in good faith to manage high volumes of traffic to ensure that all customers could use and enjoy their High-Speed Internet services," the cable giant explained to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday. "Nonetheless, the agency's rhetoric regarding the merits of the practices cannot solve the lack of any pre-existing binding legal norm governing those practices or the related legal questions presented in this Court." The company is scheduled to make its oral argument in the case in early January. The conundrum comes down to this: does the FCC have any legal power to step in if it finds that an ISP is unnecessarily interfering with an application (like BitTorrent) that millions of consumers use to share files on the Internet? The Commission and its supporters say that Congress gave the agency the broad authority it needs to do the job. Opponents say those powers are nowhere to be found.
benton.org/node/29377 | Ars Technica
Recommend this Headline
back to top


STOP THE MADNESS: THE INTERNET HAS TO BE REGULATED
[SOURCE: App-Rising.com, AUTHOR: Geoff Daily]
[Commentary] To suggest that the Internet can't and shouldn't be regulated is dangerously wrong. We have to understand that the so-called "digital economy" is simply the next generation of our traditional economy. And just like our traditional economy, there are times when we need government to step in and correct market failures, protect consumers, and generally establish what the rules are for how business should be conducted.
benton.org/node/29376 | App-Rising.com
Recommend this Headline
back to top


CROWDSOURCING AT&T'S ANTI-NET NEUTRALITY CAMPAIGN
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: Art Brodsky]
[Commentary] The power of the telephone lobby lies in the power and influence the companies generate outside of Washington. Telephone company representatives are in every Congressional district. They are in or around most communities. They are the ones who buy the tables at the Chamber of Commerce dinners, and the uniforms for the Little League. They support community organizations and know everyone in the Rotary Club. And when it comes time that the friendly AT&T or Verizon managers need a little favor from a local business person or public official, say to send a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about a proposal that could harm that favorite local company, well the people are happy to oblige. That was the basis of the unprecedented barrage that spooked the FCC in the weeks leading up to the Commission's October 22 meeting at which the Commission voted to approve proposed rules on a non-discriminatory Internet, which included letters from chambers of commerce, public officials, local businesses, retirees, among others. What other lobby could get the Graham Transfer and Storage Company of Meridian, MS, to send a letter opposing Net Neutrality as an example of a small business?
benton.org/node/29375 | Public Knowledge
Recommend this Headline
back to top


NCTA, NBCU: FCC BITTORRENT ORDER SHACKLES ISPs
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Federal Communications Commission's BitTorrent order "shackles" Internet service providers in their attempts to thwart online piracy, leaves network operators guessing about what reasonable network management is, undercuts the agency's own network neutrality proposal and should be vacated by the courts. Those were the messages from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and NBC Universal in joint comments to the U.S. Federal Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit. The court is preparing to hear oral arguments Jan. 8 on Comcast's challenge to the FCC's ruling that it violated the commission's open access guidelines in its management/blocking of BitTorrent peer-to-peer traffic.
benton.org/node/29374 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN

BROADCASTERS DEFEND THEIR SPECTRUM
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The battle over spectrum continues to heat up, with broadcasters wondering when the jabs being thrown from all angles might turn into haymakers. Broadcasters spoke up last week in the face of growing calls for them to give up some, if not all, of their spectrum so it can be used for wireless broadband. Some of those calls came from the government. The industry surrendered approximately one-third of its spectrum in the switch to digital, a move that now allows broadcasters to deliver high-definition TV and multiple channels. If everything goes as planned, they will add mobile DTV to that mix. But the Federal Communications Commission has made it clear that it will have to get more spectrum from somewhere to meet a "looming spectrum crisis," as FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recently put it. The commission has been feeling out broadcasters about the possibility of scaling back their ambitious spectrum plans, including possibly paring back their over-the-air strategy to a single standard-definition channel.
benton.org/node/29373 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top


BE WARY OF FCC'S CASH-FOR-SPECTRUM PLAN
[SOURCE: TVNewsCheck, AUTHOR: John Hane]
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission has created a big stir by proposing that broadcast spectrum be re-purposed for mobile broadband and suggesting that broadcasters might be compensated for vacating the spectrum. Broadcasters need to come up with a framework for analyzing the situation and responding to the opportunities and threats presented. The questions broadcasters are asking are the right ones. The answers will be a long time in the making, but this primer offers some starting points. The bottom line is that transition payments, if any, will come many years from now and are unlikely to be substantial compared to the enterprise value of most leading television stations. Hane offers these questions and some answers: 1) This came out of left field. Why, and why now? 2) Is there really a shortage of spectrum for wireless broadband service? 3) Why the television spectrum? 4) How much could a TV station get for the spectrum? 5) How would a reclamation process work? How long would it take? 6) Is the broadcast spectrum really underutilized? Should it really be reallocated and auctioned for wireless broadband? 7) Is there anything good about this for broadcasters?
benton.org/node/29372 | TVNewsCheck
Recommend this Headline
back to top


NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN POLICY EVALUATION
[SOURCE: Fiber-to-the-Home Council, AUTHOR: Thomas Cohen]
The Fiber-to-the-Home Council met with staff at the Federal Communications Commission to discuss a new study which finds: 1) At current course and speed, high-performance broadband will be available to a minority of US homes by 2015 and many homes will have only one provider of such service. 2) This base case deployment scenario will be inadequate for enabling nextgeneration services such as HD/3D video, cloud computing, and very large downloads/uploads due to throughput constraints and QoS limitations. 3) Accelerating high-performance broadband deployment to 80% of the US (101.6M homes) by 2015 will facilitate widespread adoption of next-generation applications. 4) Incremental annual consumer and public good benefits over the base case stemming from services enabled by high-performance broadband acceleration could reach $5.7B (if 54% homes passed), $8.9B (if 69% HP), or $11.3B (if 80% HP). 5) The total investment required for deploying high-performance broadband at an accelerated pace would be $33.313 (if 54% HP), $62.2B (if 69% HP), or $89.2B (if 80% HP) - scales of investment that are possible given historical capital
expenditure levels of major service providers.
benton.org/node/29371 | Fiber-to-the-Home Council
Recommend this Headline
back to top


THE ROLE OF BROADBAND IN IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: ]
The Federal Communications Commission will host a broadband field hearing in conjunction with Georgetown University Medical Center on The Role of Broadband in Improving Public Safety Communications and Emergency Response. The hearing will he held on Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. at Georgetown University The hearing will focus on the specific broadband requirements for America's first responders and emergency medical personnel, as well as the use of particular technologies and applications to maximize use of broadband, the cost of implementing such communications technologies, and how the National Broadband Plan now being developed by the Commission can help bring attention to, and address, these critical public safety issues. Broadband may face different challenges and serve different needs in more rural and tribal areas than in other parts of the country, so the FCC is asking for public input regarding broadband deployment for public safety in rural and tribal areas. In addition, the FCC also wants to know about public safety broadband communications to and from persons with disabilities. There's a long list of targeted questions in each area. Comments are due December 1, 2009.
benton.org/node/29370 | Federal Communications Commission | FCC Notice
Recommend this Headline
back to top


5 MILLION STAR TREK PIRATES V 1 FCC BROADBAND PLAN
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
Paramount Pictures says that, in the months following the theatrical release of Star Trek, the media company tracked more than five million IP addresses that downloaded one of six camcorded copies of the movie. The first was in Russian, but it was followed by editions from the Philippines, the Ukraine, Spain, Germany, and finally the United States. Who does Paramount blame for this? Pretty much the entire Internet, it seems, including the Google.com, youtube, Bing, Yahoo, and, of course, millions of 'Net users. "Just five years ago, one had to be computer literate and exceedingly patient to pirate movies," Paramount wrote to the Federal Communications Commission on Friday. "Today, literally anyone with an Internet connection can do it. Clunky websites are being replaced by legitimate looking and legitimate feeling pirate movie websites, a perception enhanced by the presence of premium advertisers and subscription fees processed by major financial institutions." Piracy, Paramount warns, "has advanced from geek to sleek." All the more reason why content providers "must have the legal and regulatory flexibility to use technological tools in partnership with Internet service providers to stem the tide of online copyright theft." The letter does not elaborate on what kind of "technological tools" Paramount would like to use.
benton.org/node/29369 | Ars Technica
Recommend this Headline
back to top


FCC URGED TO PROTECT WEB ENTERTAINMENT
[SOURCE: CongressDaily, AUTHOR: Andrew Noyes]
Hollywood studios are asking the Federal Communications Commission to make protecting creative content online a core principal of its national broadband plan. In a late Friday filing, the Motion Picture Association of America wrote that if the plan -- due to Congress in February -- is to serve as a roadmap for high-speed Internet service for all Americans, the government must recognize the role content plays in driving adoption of new technologies. The filing came on the heels a September FCC workshop that featured testimony from MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman and Paramount Pictures Chief Operating Officer Frederick Huntsberry.
benton.org/node/29368 | CongressDaily
Recommend this Headline
back to top


FOUR QUESTIONS FOR WALLSTEN
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Kim Hart]
Scott Wallsten is the economics director for the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Task Force. 1) On disparities in access between low income and high income households and rural and urban households, he says, "You can see that the people who are least likely to have broadband are the poorest people. The gap between lowest income and highest income is much bigger than the rural-urban gap. You can also see that poor people who live in rural areas are much less likely to have broadband than rich people in rural areas. The plan has to look at both components." 2) On improving data collection, he indicates the Census Bureau may lend a hand. 3) On bringing fiber broadband to everyone, he says, "There just really aren't applications right now that need 100 megabits per second." 4) On where to find spectrum for wireless broadband, he says the FCC will have to "look and see where spectrum is used for things that aren't particularly valuable, where it wasn't acquired through an auction mechanism" and spectrum reserved for government use.
benton.org/node/29367 | Hill, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

THE STIMULUS

CONSORTIUMS WILL BE LIKELY WINNERS OF BROADBAND STIMULUS FUNDING
[SOURCE: Government Product News, AUTHOR: Lynnette Luna]
Government groups or non-profit consortiums that bring private companies and government entities together may be the big winners when broadband stimulus awards are announced. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration asked Governors' offices and state broadband program officials to recommend first round project funding in their states. Their support for local government-run or nonprofits created for public-private partnerships runs from 30 percent to 50 percent, says Craig Settles. Indeed, a number of groups around the country are forming at the local, state and regional level and consist of disparate entities — anchor institutions, such as colleges, hospitals, libraries, counties and towns — brought together by the need for broadband connectivity and mobilized by the promise of federal stimulus money. Many are planning to build and share networks, often in cooperation with the private sector.
benton.org/node/29366 | Government Product News
Recommend this Headline
back to top


MONTANA GOV CRITICIZED FOR BACKING BROADBAND STIMULUS PROJECT
[SOURCE: Missoulian, AUTHOR: Mike Dennison]
Gov. Brian Schweitzer's recommendation that one firm get $70 million in federal stimulus funds to expand high-speed Internet service is being blasted by Montana telephone companies and regulators, who say the project won't extend new service to under-served areas. They also say the recommendation to fund construction of a fiber-optic network by Bresnan Communications, a cable Internet and TV firm, is based on false information. Critics said the Bresnan plan allegedly fills gaps on high-speed Internet service, but in reality just duplicates long-distance fiber-optic lines that already exist. It does not increase critical "last-mile" high-speed lines to homes and businesses, they said. "From our point of view, if Bresnan or anyone else wants to provide broadband connectivity to those areas that are unserved or under-served, great," said Pat Hogan, director of sales and engineering for 360networks, which has 1,800 miles of fiber-optic line in Montana. "But don't take taxpayer money to build a competing network that essentially duplicates what's there today." Yet officials from Bresnan and Montana's Indian tribes, which will benefit from the project, disagreed.
benton.org/node/29365 | Missoulian
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CYBERSECURITY

RESTLESSNESS GROWS ABSENT CYBER CZAR PICK
[SOURCE: CongressDaily, AUTHOR: Andrew Noyes]
The high-tech sector is growing restless as it awaits President Obama's appointment of a White House cybersecurity coordinator. In one of the most recent displays of that frustration, the trade group TechAmerica wrote to Obama urging him to name "a qualified, credible, senior level official... at the earliest possible opportunity." While he tends to other priorities, bad actors around the world are not sitting idly by, the Friday letter stated. "Those that would seek to harm America by exploiting our digital infrastructure continue to increase their efforts," the group said. Ideally, the cyber czar would have relevant experience in both government and industry in order to truly reflect the shared roles and responsibilities in cybersecurity, TechAmerica President Phil Bond wrote. The letter came on the heels of a series of meetings in Washington in which industry executives sought to impress upon members of Congress and administration officials the importance of strong cooperation between industry and governments at the national and international levels in securing cyberspace.
benton.org/node/29364 | CongressDaily | Huffington Post
Recommend this Headline
back to top


COLLINS DETAILS PLAN FOR CYBERSECURITY DIRECTOR
[SOURCE: CongressDaily, AUTHOR: Chris Strom]
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Susan Collins (R-Maine) called for creating a Senate-confirmed director of federal cybersecurity who would be based at the Homeland Security Department rather than the White House. Sen Collins, who is drafting cybersecurity legislation, is opposed to creating a White House "czar" to manage cybersecurity efforts, putting her at odds with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). The director would lead a cybersecurity center within the Homeland Security Department, reporting both to the department's secretary on daily operations and to the president as the nation's principal cybersecurity adviser, Collins said.
benton.org/node/29363 | CongressDaily
Recommend this Headline
back to top

OWNERSHIP
   FCC Wades Into Media Ownership
   Copps Kicks Off Media Ownership Review
   Will Comcast/NBC Need FCC Approval? And How Would That Play Out?

FCC WADES INTO MEDIA OWNERSHIP
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Academics took aim at the media ownership review process Monday in the first of three workshops at the Federal Communications Commission this week as the agency begins its congressionally mandated quadrennial review of media-ownership rules. Advice ran the gamut from suggesting that, beyond the current antitrust laws, the government had no business regulating the ownership of media outlets -- former Republican Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth -- to suggestions that the FCC might be able to regulate the media virtually at will if it could be justified as advancing the democratic role of the media. Media Bureau chief Bill Lake said the goal of all the workshops was not necessarily figuring out not so much "where we should go out as much as where we go in." Furchtgott-Roth said those not convinced of the dire straits of those TV and newspapers should visit them, but quickly, before they went out of business. He said virtually all newspapers were either shuttered, in bankruptcy, or in trouble, and that the TV station business was not much better. He said they were the victims of competition, not the absence of it. Economists and academics assembled for the panel talked about the need for more and better research, and at least one made a point about improvements the FCC needed to make to its databases so better information could be distracted. There was no consensus, but none could have been expected from the variety of views assembled. Those favoring some regulatory governor on the market tended to argue that the Internet was not necessarily a substitutable competitor. Steve Wildman, from the Quello Center For Communications Management at Michigan State, came armed with data from a study he and colleagues are conducting in association with the National Science Foundation. The bad news for broadcasters was that according to his analysis of 120 markets, in most of those, most stations weren't doing news period, and those that did weren't necessarily covering local issues. For example, he said, in Chicago only five of 15 stations were doing news. The good news was that where they were doing news, local TV and newspapers dominated in terms of local news items, far outstripping the "citizen journalist" category, cable and others.
benton.org/node/29362 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top


COPPS KICKS OFF MEDIA OWNERSHIP REVIEW
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Michael Copps]
Kicking off the Federal Communications Commission's the 2010 Quadrennial Review of Media Ownership Rules, Commissioner Michael Copps said, " It is long past time for this agency to acknowledge the pervasiveness of media and how radio, television and newspapers touch the lives of all Americans." He noted that the FCC is preeminently a consumer protection agency and said, "If we are really going to be an agency for the people, our decisions need to be nourished by input of and by the people." He reiterated that broadcast ownership rules are supposed to encourage three essential goals -- localism, diversity and competition. But, over recent years, he said, "Our broadcast media is less local, less diverse, and less competitive." He implored participants to ask, "What's happened since [the FCC's] last ownership proceeding? Not just to the industry, but to consumers and citizens. How has the emergence of new media impacted the old? Does the Internet change the ownership equation and, if so, how? Has private equity ownership complicated the Commission's job of safeguarding the public airwaves? Is it really the intent of the law to permit banks to own broadcast stations?"
benton.org/node/29361 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top


WILL COMCAST/NBC NEED FCC APPROVAL?
[SOURCE: Tales from the Sausage Factory, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] Does the Federal Communications Commission have jurisdiction over Comcast's purchase of NBC Universal? At this time, it is unclear whether all the assets held by NBC Universal would be included in the deal. NBC Universal owns lots of radio and television stations. Transfer of the licenses to the new Comcast-controlled entity would require FCC approval. But if the deal does not include the licenses, the FCC would probably lack a jurisdictional hook. Review of the deal would lie strictly in antitrust — at either the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission. From an antitrust perspective, the deal raises some concerns given the concentration of content and Comcast's position vis-a-vis other existing subscription television providers (e.g., FIOS, DIRECTV) and potential new competitors (e.g., Netflix and other "over the top" video providers)). It may also concern broadcasters -- both a) NBC affiliates worried about the change in management and b) other broadcasters worried how this would impact Comcast's retransmission negotiations. Much of this will also depend on whether the deal includes movie production studios, prior existing content, and a host of other details that impact the universe of content distribution these days.
benton.org/node/29360 | Tales from the Sausage Factory
Recommend this Headline
back to top


BUYING INTO BIG MEDIA'S RECOVERY
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Claire Atkinson]
Coming off a week in which positive GDP reports and other indicators gave rise to more economic optimism, it's now big media's turn to weigh in. Last week, a handful of TV station group owners reported continued third-quarter revenue declines, including Meredith (down 13%), LIN TV (down 18%) and McGraw-Hill (down 24%). But expectations are more positive for this week, when their national counterparts start spinning the numbers for the Street. Viacom and Discovery report on Nov. 3; Time Warner, News Corp. and Comcast Corp. on Nov. 4; Scripps and CBS on Nov. 5; and Disney on Nov. 12. All eyes will be on Comcast for any updates on its very pregnant proposal to buy NBC Universal; the deal, of course, is dependent on moves from Vivendi, the French entertainment conglomerate. Vivendi is still playing hard to get, saying last week that an IPO of the firm's 20% stake in NBCU is a possibility. But many executives from both NBCU and Comcast expect the deal to be announced imminently, and then take 12 to 18 months to complete. The dealing, however, may not be done. One Wall Street player confirmed market rumors that bankers have already descended on the MSO's Philadelphia headquarters to work with management on selling the NBC Network and stations to a third party. Comcast had no immediate comment on that still-hypothetical possibility.
benton.org/node/29381 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

Freedom of the Press

[Commentary] The Obama administration and Congress appear to be moving toward agreement on a federal shield law, which would protect reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources. The bill that is emerging is not perfect, but it would help ensure that Americans get the information they need about the workings of government, business and other institutions that affect their lives. Among the weakest points of the compromise is the standard for criminal cases, which puts too heavy a burden of proof on reporters. It is also unfortunate that the agreement does not protect nonconfidential material, such as information in reporters' notes that does not make it into a newspaper article. Over all, however, the bill would be a clear improvement on the status quo. The House has already passed its shield bill. The Senate should pass this compromise bill quickly, and the president should sign it into law.

Buying Into Big Media's Recovery

Coming off a week in which positive GDP reports and other indicators gave rise to more economic optimism, it's now big media's turn to weigh in. Last week, a handful of TV station group owners reported continued third-quarter revenue declines, including Meredith (down 13%), LIN TV (down 18%) and McGraw-Hill (down 24%). But expectations are more positive for this week, when their national counterparts start spinning the numbers for the Street. Viacom and Discovery report on Nov. 3; Time Warner, News Corp. and Comcast Corp. on Nov. 4; Scripps and CBS on Nov. 5; and Disney on Nov. 12. All eyes will be on Comcast for any updates on its very pregnant proposal to buy NBC Universal; the deal, of course, is dependent on moves from Vivendi, the French entertainment conglomerate. Vivendi is still playing hard to get, saying last week that an IPO of the firm's 20% stake in NBCU is a possibility. But many executives from both NBCU and Comcast expect the deal to be announced imminently, and then take 12 to 18 months to complete. The dealing, however, may not be done. One Wall Street player confirmed market rumors that bankers have already descended on the MSO's Philadelphia headquarters to work with management on selling the NBC Network and stations to a third party. Comcast had no immediate comment on that still-hypothetical possibility.

Health Care, Afghan War and the Economy Drive News Narrative

Two ongoing domestic policy stories and the emerging foreign policy challenge in Afghanistan are now regularly monopolizing the media's attention. And if they haven't completely eclipsed the rest of the news, they have made it more difficult for other topics to break into the headlines. Last week, once again, the debate over health care, the war in Afghanistan and the economic crisis accounted for roughly 40% of the newshole studied by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism—the fourth straight week those subjects combined for that level of attention. The health care battle was the No. 1 story last week, October 25-November 1, filling 16% of the newshole, according to PEJ's weekly News Coverage Index. The war in Afghanistan was close behind, at 13%, followed by the state of the economy, at 12%.

One flew over the Internet

[Commentary] The network neutrality dispute, when reduced to its core elements, is nothing more than another round in the protracted battle between Netheads and Bellheads. Long before the Internet went commercial in the early-to-mid-1990s and later matured into a global distribution network for commerce and communications, network engineers had been feuding with telecommunications engineers over the best way to build networks and deliver services. In the blink-and-you'll-miss-it environment that marks today's communications industry, it's comforting to know that some things stay the same: The so-called Netheads and Bellheads are still at it. In fact, it could be argued that the fighting is as fierce as ever — and the stakes have never been higher. This latest struggle between Netheads and Bellheads has been most prominently represented by a three-letter acronym: IMS. The IP multimedia subsystem carries the connotation of being either essential or superfluous, depending on the perspective. Bellheads, of course, see the IMS architecture as a successor to the signaling system seven (SS7) infrastructure that delivered a mechanism for gracefully managing the control side of the PSTN. The SS7 network (a packet-based network, by the way), created a universal standard that enabled carriers to offer their customers the ability to communicate — using voice or messaging — with virtually any other owner of a phone, regardless of the carrier that offered the service. From the Bellhead standpoint, IMS represents the ability to bring to the public Internet the reliability and predictability of circuit-based communications systems, as well as enable interoperability across carrier networks. Netheads, or backers of an Internet-based computing model, see IMS in a superfluous light, adding complexity and costs that will only hinder innovation. At the extreme, Netheads view IMS as nefarious, a blight upon a pristine ecosystem that will empower the owners of local transport pipes to erect toll booths or road blocks between ISPs and subscribers.