Benton's Communications-related Headlines for 10/15/04

Today, the Progress & Freedom Foundation is hosting a discussion at=20
Congress on "reinventing" the FCC. This weekend, CPSR meets in Washington,=
=20
DC. And, don't forget, there's lots of high-quality baseball available from=
=20
Boston and Houston over the next few days. For upcoming media policy=20
events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm

MORE ON SINCLAIR
FCC Will Not Block Sinclair Show
Balance Is Broadcasters', Viewers' Call
Whew! Free Speech Free Another Day
A Tone-Deaf Broadcaster
CU Asks Sinclair Stations to Survey Residents on "Documentary"

BROADCASTING/TELEVISION
Real, Enlightening TV
FCC Backs Off HDTV Deadline
Free Air
Pre-Emption Pays Off for WRAZ
Product Placement in TV Shows Moves Out of Background
PBS Execs Seek to Lower Bar for 30-second Spots
Right-Tilting Shows Join Public Affairs Options
Va.-Based, U.S.-Financed Arabic Channel Finds Its Voice

NEWS FROM FCC MEETING
Broadband Deployment in Residential Neighborhoods
Broadband Over Power Lines
Spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services

TELECOM
Update on Funding Freeze and Possible Solutions
Feds Debut eRate Eligibility Database
Making Peace with the Phone Bill

QUICKLY
Fair-Use Fans Hail McCain
Indymedia Servers Mysteriously Reappear, But Questions Remain
ICANN Breaks Budget Impasse
Fewer Women in Computer Jobs These Days

MORE ON SINCLAIR

FCC WILL NOT BLOCK SINCLAIR SHOW
The FCC will look at the Sinclair/Stolen Honor situation, but, says=20
Chairman Michael Powell, "There is no rule that I'm aware of that would=20
allow the Commission =AD nor would it be prudent =AD to prevent the airing=
of a=20
program. And the only rules that I've heard in any way possibly implicated=
=20
are equal time, which merely means that the licensee would have to offer=20
the other side an opportunity to respond. And, at least according to press=
=20
reports, that opportunity has been provided." He added, "I would emphasize,=
=20
there is no FCC rule of prior restraint of a program being aired on=20
television. I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First=20
Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do=20
so. So don't look to us to block the airing of a program."
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA472208?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

BALANCE IS BROADCASTERS', VIEWERS' CALL
The Radio-Television News Directors Association agrees with FCC Chairman=20
Michael Powell that government isn't in the business of prior restraint.=20
Responding to the Sinclair flap that has some legislators pushing for FCC=20
investigations, RTNDA President Barbara Cochran said, "We fully support the=
=20
free speech rights of broadcasters. Freedom of the press is a bedrock first=
=20
Amendment principle and one with which the government should not tamper.=20
Neither the Congress nor the FCC should be the national arbiter of=20
newsworthiness, nor should government attempt to judge the wisdom, accuracy=
=20
or balance of any station's news product." Cochran went on to refer to the=
=20
RTNDA's code of ethics which, among other things, says that "service in the=
=20
public interest creates an obligation to reflect the diversity in the=20
community and to guard against oversimplification of issues or events and=20
to provide a full range of information." Cochran says decisions about how=20
well broadcasters are meeting those obligations are the province of news=20
organizations and audiences. "Government should not, and cannot, interfere=
=20
in those decisions concerning broadcast content."
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA472269?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

WHEW! FREE SPEECH FREE ANOTHER DAY
[Commentary] Rush Limbaugh says that media ownership concentration is a=20
good thing and the Sinclair/Stolen Honor situation proves it. FCC Chairman=
=20
Michael Powell announced that the Commission will not prevent the company=20
from airing the documentary on its 62 TV stations. "Whew! Free speech is=20
safe for another day," Limbaugh says. He goes on to relate, "Thirty years=20
ago, Sinclair Broadcasting Company consisted of one family owned Baltimore=
=20
channel on the UHF dial, made up of a high numbered stations whose signals=
=20
were so weak that viewers had to adjust a flimsy little antenna to get a=20
clear picture.... Now Sinclair owns more TV stations than anyone outside=20
the major networks." So? What? Big deal, "...and it is not at all shy about=
=20
using its clout to advance a conservative agenda." Limbaugh sees this as a=
=20
good thing and concludes that Sinclair would not have won the battle to air=
=20
the film if it was as small as it was 15 years ago.
[SOURCE: Rush Limbaugh Show]
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101404/content/stack_a.guest...
l
To hear the best impression of MAP President Andrew J. Schwartzman ever=20
recorded by a conservative talk radio host, check out the URL below:
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips...
10/101404_13_sinclair.asx=20

A TONE-DEAF BROADCASTER
If opponents of further media concentration had floated this as a=20
hypothetical scenario to advance their cause, they would have been=20
laughingly dismissed. But with breathtaking political tone-deafness,=20
Sinclair has come to their rescue. There is a strong case for revising the=
=20
decades-old media ownership rules, but thanks to Sinclair, the case will be=
=20
a tougher sell. It's no wonder investors rushed to sell shares in the=20
ineptly managed media company after The Times first reported Sinclair's=20
plans to compel most of its 62 stations to air "Stolen Honor." Viewers may=
=20
recall that Sinclair, six months ago, barred its ABC affiliates from airing=
=20
an episode of ABC's "Nightline" in which anchor Ted Koppel read the names=20
of soldiers killed in Iraq. Koppel's roll call, Sinclair said, was "a=20
political statement disguised as news content." Now, it claims just the=20
opposite for "Stolen Honor."
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: LATimes Editorial Staff]
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-fcc15oct15,1,4949...
story?coll=3Dla-news-comment
(requires registration)

CU ASKS SINCLAIR STATIONS TO SURVEY RESIDENTS ON "DOCUMENTARY"
Consumers Union has written the station managers of Sinclair-owned stations=
=20
to "request that you immediately commission an independent survey of=20
viewers in your area to ascertain what actions are appropriate on your=20
part, in response to Sinclair=92s decision, to preserve the existence of a=
=20
robust political debate at the community level that is the cornerstone of=20
our democracy. This survey should ask whether other points of view should=20
be given equal weight to ensure that citizens have all the facts they need=
=20
before they enter the voting booth on November 2nd." The letter goes on:=20
Local broadcasters have long claimed that they do and should reflect the=20
views and needs of citizens in their communities. For example, in its=20
=93National Report on Local Broadcasters=92 Community Service,=94 the=
National=20
Association of Broadcasters states: =93The bottom line is that local=20
broadcasters make substantial public service contributions to their=20
communities -- contributions that have great value and impact. And, as=20
always, a major reason for the success of the industry=92s public service=20
activities is that local broadcasters are making their decisions about=20
where to contribute -- and how -- based on the specific needs of the=20
communities they serve.=94 We believe this commitment engenders a=20
responsibility on your part to understand the information needs of citizens=
=20
in your community and then take action to ensure that citizens receive=20
overall fair, balanced coverage of the presidential campaign. This action=20
is necessary to ensure the robust debate critical to our democracy.
The letter was cc'ed to FCC Commissioners.
[SOURCE: Consumers Union]
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/001441.html...
e

BROADCASTING/TELEVISION

REAL, ENLIGHTENING TV
[Comentary] The presidential debates have been the ultimate reality TV.=20
They freed a canned campaign from the spinmeisters and attack-ad=20
manipulators and put it in the nation's living rooms, where people could=20
make up their own minds. The tools of modern politics have been honed, to=
=20
a frightening extent, so that they can shape perceptions. But the debates=20
neutralized that manipulative power, at least for 270 minutes. No wonder=20
incumbent presidents don't like debates. They have everything to lose and=20
very little to gain. By agreeing to debate his rival, a president moves=20
from a unique position of power, radiating the glow of the presidency, to a=
=20
level field. He gives up his best weapon and allows his opponent to=20
overcome his greatest liability. And that's before they begin talking. If=20
Bush should lose in November, I wonder if an incumbent will ever again=20
submit to the same trial by television in three 90-minute slices of reality.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: David Ignatius davidignatius( at )washpost.com=
]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34166-2004Oct14.html
(requires registration)

FCC BACKS OFF HDTV DEADLINE
Ending the digital TV transition by 2006 may be out of the question,=20
but the FCC seems to have adopted an unofficial target date of Jan. 1,=20
2009. Media critics say an extension would allow broadcasters to hog large=
=20
segments of a publicly owned broadcast spectrum that's worth billions to=20
the wireless phone industry and other commercial communications interests.=
=20
"The broadcasters are spectrum-squatters," said Jeff Chester, executive=20
director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a Washington-based public=20
interest group. "Spectrum is the new gold -- it's the oil wells of=
cyberspace."
[SOURCE: Knight Ridder, AUTHOR: Charles Homans]
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/9913922.htm

FREE AIR
[Commentary] Local TV stations have consistently been among the most=20
lucrative businesses in the country, but they have never been asked to pay=
=20
for their use of the public airwaves. In a sense, broadcasters are the=20
modern equivalent of the railroads. In the nineteenth century, the=20
railroads were given tens of millions of acres of land (adding up,=20
eventually, to roughly 10% of the country); now broadcasters have been=20
given billions of dollars=92 worth of electromagnetic real estate. The=20
government has subsidized TV stations because it wanted the media to serve=
=20
the public interest. Broadcasters get their licenses free, and, in=20
exchange, they=92re supposed to keep the citizenry informed. Commendable as=
=20
this mandate may seem, it has very little to do with the business of=20
broadcast television. Today, most Americans -- 90% or so -- have cable or=20
satellite TV. The airwaves are used less and less. Nor is there any=20
evidence that the public interest is better served by broadcasters than by=
=20
cable channels. That the major networks showed just an hour of coverage per=
=20
night of the national political conventions suggests that it is not. For=20
some reason we seem to believe that free commercial television is an=20
inalienable right. We may not be willing to pay for all Americans to have=20
health insurance, but we=92re content to pay for them to watch =93Scrubs.=94=
By=20
endowing local broadcasters with free channels, the government effectively=
=20
made them little spectrum monopolists, and the one thing we know about=20
monopolies is that they do not disappear of their own volition. The=20
broadcasters, thanks in large part to their monopolies, have enormous=20
lobbying resources, and their control of the airwaves has made local=20
television -- and, in particular, local television news -- a powerful=20
weapon to wield against politicians who cross them. Politics drives the=20
business, and the business shapes the politics. As for the public interest=
=20
-- does =93Desperate Housewives=94 count?
[SOURCE: The New Yorker, AUTHOR: James Surowiecki]
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041018ta_talk_surowiecki

PRE-EMPTION PAYS OFF FOR WRAZ
Durham, North Carolina's WRAZ-TV, owned by Capitol Broadcasting, decided=20
not to air "Married By America" and, so, will not face the $7,000 fine=20
other Fox affiliates now do. WRAZ-TV divorced itself from the show starting=
=20
with its third episode after the broadcaster concluded the series "demeaned=
=20
and exploited the institution of marriage." The station also preempted "Who=
=20
Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire" in February 2003 for the same reason.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA472205?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

PRODUCT PLACEMENT IN TV SHOWS MOVES OUT OF BACKGROUND
Marketers are using scripted content to get their brands noticed and making=
=20
it harder to tell what's a show and what's an ad. "Advertisers are taking=20
the next step to =85 go beyond product placement," says Andy Donchin, media=
=20
buyer at Carat. "They are trying to be there at the inception of a show to=
=20
see if there is any way to integrate a product or service organically into=
=20
a program." The new thinking has brought shifts in ad dollars. For example,=
=20
ever since it found success with placement in Fox's American Idol and=20
24,Ford has moved spending to such appearances. It now spends less than 80%=
=20
of its ad budget on traditional TV and print ads. "We're seeing some blips=
=20
in data that there is more impact that comes out of these deals than from=20
30-second ads,=94 says Rich Stoddart, marketing communications manager at=20
Ford. The risk is that viewers eventually get turned off by the commercial=
=20
clutter in shows. =93It's a very fine line between doing something that=
works=20
and something that could turn off viewers,=94 warns ad buyer Donchin.
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Theresa Howard]
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20041015/placement.art.htm

PBS EXECS SEEK TO LOWER BAR FOR 30-SECOND SPOTS
To sweeten the appeal of corporate underwriting, PBS management has=20
recommended letting more funders into its Premier Sponsorship club, which=20
gives them 30-second credits instead of 15-second spots. PBS hopes the club=
=20
will add some new faces by admitting underwriters whose spending exceeds=20
$1.5 million. The present threshold is $2.5 million. PBS execs think=20
lowering the threshold could help generate another $12-15 million in=
revenue.
[SOURCE: Current, AUTHOR: Jeremy Egner]
http://www.current.org/cm/cm0418thirty.shtml

RIGHT-TILTING SHOWS JOIN PUBLIC AFFAIRS OPTIONS
PBS has added Journal Editorial Report and Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered=20
hoping to broaden the range of viewpoints found on member stations. Though=
=20
political partisans may get excited over changes in the public affairs=20
lineup, for many viewers the new shows fade into a talking-heads marathon=20
that runs from dinner until past bedtime on some stations. "All of the=20
official word from PBS is that we=92re doing this to add more points of=20
view,=94 said Wisconsin Public TV=92s Dave Iverson, executive director of=
Best=20
Practices in Journalism. =93I wish our standard was, =91Let=92s try to do=
the=20
best job we can and find the best journalists=92=94 instead of choosing=
on-air=20
talent for their ideological affiliations. Partisan advocacy is driving too=
=20
much media coverage, including Fox News, Michael Moore=92s punditry and the=
=20
CBS News reports that gave credence to fake documents on President Bush=92s=
=20
National Guard service, Iverson said. =93I think there=92s an amazing=20
opportunity for public broadcasting to say, =91Look at us -- we=92re the=
ones=20
to give you the straight skinny=92 -- to be the journalistic equivalent of=
=20
John McCain.=94
[SOURCE: Current, AUTHOR: Karen Everhart]
http://www.current.org/news/news0418fridays.shtml

VA-BASED, US-FINANCED ARABIC CHANNEL FINDS ITS VOICE
Alhurra TV, a network with 150 reporters based in Springfield (VA), is the=
=20
U.S. government's largest and most expensive effort to sway foreign opinion=
=20
over the airwaves since the creation of Voice of America in 1942. The=20
24-hour channel, which started operating in February, airs two daily=20
hour-long newscasts, and sports, cooking, fashion, technology and=20
entertainment programs, including a version of "Inside the Actors Studio"=20
dubbed in Arabic. It also carries political talk shows and magazine-type=20
news programs, including one about the U.S. presidential election. Congress=
=20
last year approved $62 million to pay for Alhurra's first year. In November=
=20
2003, Congress committed $40 million more to launch a sister station in=20
April aimed solely at Iraq. The operation is overseen by the Broadcasting=20
Board of Governors, an independent federal agency that is also in charge of=
=20
Voice of America. The U.S. government launched Alhurra after deciding that=
=20
existing Arab news channels displayed anti-American bias. The aim is to=20
promote a more positive U.S. image to Arabs.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Ellen McCarthy]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33564-2004Oct14.html
(requires registration)

NEWS FROM FCC MEETING
Two items were late scratches from the FCC's open meeting agenda: 1)=20
payphone compensation rules and 2) the definition of incumbent local=20
exchange carrier.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253112A1.doc

BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
The FCC relieved incumbents telecos from unbundling requirements for=20
fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) loops, where fiber is extended within 500 feet of=
=20
a customer's premises. The FCC found that FTTC networks can deliver many=20
of the same benefits as FTTC loops. FTTC networks offer enhanced=20
capability for providing advanced services, including the ability to offer=
=20
voice, multi-channel video, and high-speed data services. The new rules=20
free companies to choose between fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) or FTTC networks=
=20
based on marketplace characteristics, rather than disparate regulatory=20
treatment. The FCC also clarified that incumbent telecos are not obligated=
=20
to build time division multiplexing (TDM) capability into new packet-based=
=20
networks or into existing packet-based networks that never had TDM=
capability.
[SOURCE: FCC]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253127A1.doc
STATEMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS --
* Powell (Majority):
Deep fiber networks offer consumers a "triple play" of voice, video and=20
data services and an alternative to cable. By limiting the unbundling=20
obligations of incumbents when they roll out deep fiber networks to=20
residential consumers, we restore the marketplace incentives of carriers to=
=20
invest in new networks. There is, however, an important limiting principle=
=20
in this item: our rules demand that carriers deploy fiber deep into=20
neighborhoods - within 500 feet of a customers' home. Our policy is=20
designed to remove regulatory barriers to these risky investments; but we=20
will remain watchful of requests that would back the Commission up from the=
=20
broadband future. Consumers deserve information at the speed of light and=
=20
by taking action today, we move one step closer to that result.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253127A2.doc
Abernathy:=
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253127A3.doc
Martin: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253127A5.doc
* Copps (Dissenting):
Though today's Order speaks in glowing terms about broadband relief, the=20
reality is far less radiant. I don't believe competitive=20
telecommunications have been faring very well under our watch and this=20
particular proceeding strikes me as yet another in a series of=20
prescriptions this Commission is willing to write to end competitive access=
=20
to last mile facilities. It seems every month brings a new onslaught. Here=
=20
is why I think this approach is dangerous. The loop represents the prized=
=20
last mile of communications. Putting it beyond the reach of competitors=20
can only entrench incumbents who already hold sway. Monopoly control of=20
the last mile created all kinds of problems for basic telephone service in=
=20
the last century, and now we seem bent on replicating that sad story for=20
advanced services in the digital age. Unfortunately, the digital age is=20
going to take a lot longer to get here because of the blows we are=20
inflicting on competition. If we aren't going to listen to consumers, one=
=20
would think this Commission would at least listen to the investors who=20
wrote us again last week that our broadband policies are undermining=20
competition, undermining facilities-based carriers who need last-mile=20
access to service small business customers, and undermining the confidence=
=20
of investors who want to put money into this kind of competition-in fact=20
who have already done so! It doesn't take a compass to see what direction=20
this is heading. With fewer and fewer loops available to competitors, more=
=20
and more control will be wrestled away from consumers and placed with the=20
entrenched owner of the last mile facility. By shutting off the last mile=
=20
to competitors, the Commission is not ushering in a new era of=20
broadband. It is returning to the failed and non-competitive policies of=20
the past. Residential consumers, small businesses, edge providers of VoIP=
=20
and others who rely on competitive broadband will be stuck with the=20
consequences, and the consequences will be with us for a long time and=20
will, I predict, kick us further down that broadband penetration ladder=20
where your country and mine now ranks Number 11.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253127A4.doc
Adelstein (Dissenting in part):=20
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253127A6.doc
REACTIONS
* Association for Local Telecommunications Services
=93The Bell companies -- with the support of the FCC -- are quickly=20
recapturing their monopoly over local loops. Thanks to the FCC=92s action=20
today, the Bells can now deny competitive carriers access to local loop=20
facilities that contain any fiber =AD including part fiber/part copper loops=
=20
that were deployed decades ago. In a complete reversal of broadband=20
policies announced just last year, the FCC has now immunized the Bell=20
companies from competition for residential and small business customers=20
over existing loops =AD even though the FCC concluded that such=20
remonopolization of loop plant would disincent further investment in new=20
fiber deployment. Today=92s action undermines facilities-based competition=
=20
and threatens the availability of competitive services to businesses. Even=
=20
access to core DS1 network elements -- supported by a unanimous FCC in the=
=20
last competition proceeding -- is being curtailed in response to Bell=20
company requests. The FCC needs to stop saying one thing and doing another.=
=20
The nation=92s small businesses need the Administration and the FCC to stand=
=20
firmly in support of loop unbundling.=94
* Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America
"The FCC today took our country one giant step closer toward solidifying a=
=20
two-company domination -- the local cable and telephone providers -- over=20
the consumer Internet market,=94 said Gene Kimmelman, Senior Policy Director=
=20
for Consumers Union. =93As both industries tighten their hold on high-speed=
=20
Internet (broadband) access, consumers will see their choices diminish and=
=20
their bills skyrocket.=94 =93This stranglehold will stifle innovation as=
=20
these duopolies discriminate against unaffiliated applications and services=
=20
that in the past have driven the growth of the Internet and the boom in=20
information technology,=94 Mark Cooper, Director of Research at the Consumer=
=20
Federation of America, said. =93As a result, our country will fall even=20
farther behind Asia and Europe in broadband penetration.=94
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/001443.html...
e
SEE ALSO --
Reuters:=20
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3DHIK3ZIV30ABA0CRBAE...
Y?type=3DtechnologyNews&storyID=3D6506341

BROADBAND OVER POWER LINES
As part of its goal to promote access to broadband services for all=20
Americans and to encourage new facilities based broadband platforms, the=20
FCC adopted changes to Part 15 of its rules to encourage the development of=
=20
Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) systems while safeguarding=20
existing licensed services against harmful interference. Access BPL is a=20
new technology that provides access to high speed broadband services using=
=20
the largely untapped communications capabilities of the nation's power=20
grid. By facilitating access to BPL, the Commission takes an important=20
step toward increasing the availability of broadband to wider areas of the=
=20
country because power lines reach virtually every home and community. In=20
areas where consumers already have broadband access, BPL can enhance=20
competition by providing another broadband alternative. Access BPL will=20
also facilitate the ability of electric utilities to dynamically manage the=
=20
power grid itself, increasing network reliability by remote diagnosis of=20
electrical system failures. The FCC order: 1) Sets forth rules imposing=20
new technical requirements on BPL devices, such as the capability to avoid=
=20
using any specific frequency and to remotely adjust or shut down any unit;=
=20
2) Establishes "excluded frequency bands" within which BPL must avoid=20
operating entirely to protect aeronautical and aircraft receivers=20
communications; and establishes "exclusion zones" in locations close to=20
sensitive operations, such as coast guard or radio astronomy stations,=20
within which BPL must avoid operating on certain frequencies; 3)=20
Establishes consultation requirements with public safety agencies, federal=
=20
government sensitive stations, and aeronautical stations; 4) Establishes a=
=20
publicly available Access BPL notification database to facilitate an=20
organized approach to identification and resolution of harmful=20
interference; 5) Changes the equipment authorization for Access BPL systems=
=20
from verification to certification; and 6) Improves measurement procedures=
=20
for all equipment that use RF energy to communicate over power lines.
[SOURCE: FCC]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253125A1.doc
Statements from Commissioners --
* Powell and FERC Chairman Wood:
The FCC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a joint statement=20
urging 1) utilities to pursue new and developing technologies, such as BPL,=
=20
that will foster greater customer options in broadband, provide more=20
efficient management of the power supply system, and ensure increased=20
operational reliability and 2) utilities to appropriately allocate revenues=
=20
and costs related to new technologies, such as Access BPL, between=20
regulated and unregulated functions.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253128A1.doc
* Copps (Dissenting in part):
I'm also disappointed that today's item dodges some of the hardest BPL=20
questions. If we want investment in BPL, we need certainty and=20
predictability. But issues such as universal service, disabilities access,=
=20
E911, pole attachments, competition protections, and, critically, how to=20
handle the potential for cross-subsidization between regulated power=20
businesses and unregulated communications businesses remain up in the=20
air. Is it right to allow electricity rate payers to pay higher bills=20
every month to subsidize an electric company's foray into broadband? I'm=20
glad our FERC colleagues are here today, because this last part needs to be=
=20
a fully collaborative effort. Some will argue that we don't know enough=20
about what this technology will look like yet, so we shouldn't impose any=20
obligations lest we regulate an infant technology out of existence. Or=20
that we shouldn't saddle a new technology with long-standing policy=20
objectives. I disagree. Just because these policy goals are long standing=
=20
doesn't mean that they are out of date. Public safety, rural service,=20
competition and disabilities access never go out of date. I don't yet know=
=20
how these issues will play out for powerline broadband or what rules the=20
Commission should adopt. But we should have used this proceeding to start=
=20
giving investors and consumers some certainty on the matter. Having=20
understandable rules of the road is what investors, as well as consumers,=20
are looking for
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253125A3.doc
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE --
NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/technology/15power.html
WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34100-2004Oct14.html

SPECTRUM FOR ADVANCED SERVICES
The FCC allocated spectrum to allow Federal operations to be cleared from=20
spectrum that has been allocated for advanced wireless services (AWS),=20
including third generation wireless (3G) systems. This action is an=20
important step towards the future auction of 90 MHz of spectrum for AWS.=20
The Commission previously allocated the 1710-1755 MHz (1.7 GHz) and 2110=20
2155 MHz (2.1 GHz) bands for AWS. The 1.7 GHz band was transferred from=20
the Federal Government for private sector use, but Federal operations at=20
certain locations were to remain in this spectrum indefinitely. The U.S.=20
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information=20
Administration ("NTIA"), working with the Department of Defense and other=20
Federal agencies, developed a set of proposals to clear this spectrum so=20
that it could be made available for AWS throughout the United States.
[SOURCE: FCC]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253130A1.doc
Reaction
http://www.ctia.org/news_media/press/body.cfm?record_id=3D1447

TELECOM

UPDATE ON FUNDING FREEZE AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
What are the possible outcomes of the current E-Rate funding freeze? E-Rate=
=20
Central offer three possibilities: 1) Under political pressure, the=20
decision to define Funding Commitment Decision Letters (FCDLs) as legal=20
obligations requiring cash on-hand might be reversed. Although viewed as a=
=20
low probability, this would permit the immediate resumption of funding.=20
Since the E-Rate administrator has continued its review of applications=20
since the freeze began, a large initial wave of commitments (more than $300=
=20
million) would be expected. 2) A related possibility being given serious=20
consideration is to weaken the language of the current FCDLs to make it=20
clear that the funding being awarded is dependent upon the availability of=
=20
cash at the time invoices are filed. If the administrator can issue weaker=
=20
FCDLs that are not legally considered obligations, then the funding waves=20
could again be resumed much as before. The major concern with this approach=
=20
is whether applicants and/or service providers will be willing to accept=20
these authorizations as the basis for the initiation of new projects and/or=
=20
the extension of discount-dependent credits. 3) If no changes are made,=20
then the resumption of funding will depend on the availability of=20
uncommitted cash. The administrator has been actively working to free up=20
earlier commitments by encouraging applicants to file Form 500s to cancel=20
existing funding awards that will not be used. Additional uncommitted cash=
=20
is expected to be generated after October 29th, the invoice deadline for=20
recurring services, to the extent that applicants do not actually use all=20
the funds awarded for FY 2003. The primary source of new cash, however, are=
=20
contributions that flow into the Universal Service Fund on a quarterly=20
basis - a flow that has unfortunately been reduced by FCC actions as=20
recently as last month. In this case, the funding schedule will be tied=20
primarily to new cash inflows and may require new rules and procedures to=20
establish funding priorities.
[SOURCE: E-Rate Central]
http://www.e-ratecentral.com/archive/News/News2004/weekly_news_40.asp#b1

FEDS DEBUT ERATE ELIGIBILITY DATABASE
Removing uncertainty about what's allowed and what's not, eRate applicants=
=20
now can search for eligible products in a new online database that was=20
created by the FCC. The database is part of a pilot project intended to=20
benefit all eRate stakeholders by making the program simpler and possibly=20
limiting waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.
[SOURCE: eSchool News, AUTHOR: Cara Branigan]
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=3D5322

MAKING PEACE WITH THE PHONE BILL
In his recent book, The Future of Work, Thomas Malone argues that=20
continuing reductions in the unit cost of communication are changing the=20
face of business, leading to decentralization, innovative use of markets,=20
and eventually, workplace democracy. But are we enjoying those reductions=20
at home? In real dollars, US households probably pay twice as much for=20
communications as we did 20 years ago. Speaking with Brown, Malone is quick=
=20
to point out that he's talking about the unit charges of communications=20
dropping, not the total cost. =93When the unit cost of something goes down,=
=20
people usually buy more of it,=94 he said, going on to explain that this=20
"elasticity of demand" is unusually high in today=92s telecom market. It=92s=
so=20
high, in fact that =93when the unit cost goes down, people buy so much more=
=20
of it that their total cost actually increases. Today=92s freelancers have=
=20
cheap and easy access to many orders of magnitude more information than=20
they did in the 1980s,=94 he said. =93They have flat rate long distance and=
can=20
take and receive calls wherever they are. They can send e-mail to as many=20
people as they want for free and find information in seconds that, if it=20
could be found at all, would have taken numerous phone calls and letters.=20
In fact, in many cases, freelancers have access to better information than=
=20
was available to the most senior managers of GM, IBM, and the U.S.=20
government back in the =9280s.=94
[SOURCE: Technology Review, AUTHOR: Eric S. Brown]
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_brown101304.asp

QUICKLY

FAIR-USE FANS HAIL MCCAIN
Consumers Union, Public Knowledge and other fair-use fans have written a=20
thank you letter to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his efforts to block the=20
quick passage of copyright-related legislation that the groups argued=20
favored Hollywood. "Through your objection to the further consideration or=
=20
passage of these bills by unanimous consent," they wrote, "you have again=20
shown that the rights and expectations of consumers and the public are=20
paramount in the balance between copyright and innovation."
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA472257?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
See full text of letter at
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/letters/thankmccain

INDYMEDIA SERVERS MYSTERIOUSLY REAPPEAR, BUT QUESTIONS REMAIN
Rackspace Managed Hosting, the San Antonio-based company that manages two=20
Indymedia servers seized by the US government last Thursday, said yesterday=
=20
that the servers have been returned and are now available to go back=20
online. Immediate access to the servers, which host Indymedia's Internet=20
radio station and more than 20 Indymedia websites, will be delayed so that=
=20
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) can ensure that the servers are=20
secure and take steps to preserve evidence for future legal action. Now=20
that the servers have been returned, the question still remains: who took=20
them, and under what authority? Citing a gag order, Rackspace would not=20
comment on what had happened both in the original seizure of the servers or=
=20
their return. All that is known at this point is that the subpoena that=20
resulted in the seizure was issued at the request of a foreign government,=
=20
most likely with the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office in=20
San Antonio. Although initial reports suggested that the FBI had taken the=
=20
servers, the FBI has now denied any involvement. The seizure, which=20
silenced numerous political news websites for several days, is clearly a=20
violation of the First Amendment. "Secret orders silencing US media should=
=20
be beyond the realm of possibility in a country that believes in freedom of=
=20
speech," said EFF staff attorney Kurt Opsahl. "EFF was founded with the=20
Steve Jackson Games case fourteen years ago, and at that time we=20
established that seizing entire servers because of a claim about some=20
pieces of information on them is blatantly illegal and improper. It appears=
=20
the government forgot this basic rule, and we will need to remind them."
[SOURCE: Electronic Frontier Foundation Press Release]
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_10.php#002006
See also
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

ICANN BREAKS BUDGET IMPASSE
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) hammered=20
out an agreement for its 2004-05 budget after resolving a key disagreement=
=20
that had delayed the measure. The sticking point was a tripartite fee=20
structure that smaller registrars organized to fight, claiming it unfairly=
=20
disadvantaged them. ICANN is fending off a number of legal actions, but has=
=20
also budgeted to: 1) Start monitoring its members for anticompetitive=20
practices, such as denying legitimate domain name transfer requests; 2)=20
Speed and in some cases automate response to requests for IP addresses made=
=20
by regional Internet registries to ICANN's Internet Assigned Numbers=20
Authority (IANA); and 3) Allow the registration of non-English top level=20
domains, for example Dutch or Chinese versions of ".com."
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Paul Festa]
http://news.com.com/ICANN+breaks+budget+impasse/2100-1028_3-5408626.html...
=3Dnefd.hed

FEWER WOMEN IN COMPUTER JOBS THESE DAYS
A study released Wednesday by the Commission on Professionals in Science=20
and Technology found a decline in the share of computer science jobs held=20
by women in a recent 20-year period. In 1983, women held 30.5% of the jobs=
=20
in the category of computer systems analysts and scientists, programmers=20
and postsecondary computer science teachers, according to the commission.=20
That figure declined to 27.2% in 2002.
For more info, see CPST's Press release=20
http://www.cpst.org/STEM/STEM2_Press.doc and report=20
http://www.cpst.org/STEM_Report.cfm
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Ed Frauenheim]
http://news.com.com/Fewer+women+in+computer+jobs+these+days/2100-1022_3-...
551.html?tag=3Dnefd.hed
--------------------------------------------------------------
...and we're outta here. Have a great weekend!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online news summary service=20
provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday through=20
Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments,=20
policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are=20
factually accurate, their often informal tone does not always represent the=
=20
tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang=20
(headlines( at )benton.org) -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------