For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm
INTERNET
Supreme Court Takes Brand X Case
Bush Signs Net Access Tax Ban Into Law
Artists and Musicians are Enthusiastic Internet Users
OWNERSHIP
8-Year-Old Basic Law May Be Outdated Already
How Regulators Reshaped the Way Companies Run
Bush May Spur More Newspaper Consolidation
INDECENCY/CENSORSHIP
When Is a Dirty Show Indecent?
Yesterday's FCC Can Teach Us a Lesson in Free Speech
QUICKLY -- Advocacy Groups Blur Media Lines; Digital TV; Public
Radio Checkup; Broadcast News; Wi-Fi Networks;
Web use in China; Fox Will Become Main News Source For
Clear Channel; No DTV Vote Soon; Powell is NOT Funny
BRAND X COMMENTS
INTERNET
SUPREME COURT TAKES ON BRAND X CASE
The Supreme Court decided on Friday to review Brand X Internet Services vs.
Federal Communications Commission, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit that voided the FCC's March 2002 ruling that
cable-modem providers did not have to share facilities at regulated rates.
The Ninth Circuit held that because cable-modem service is partly a
telecommunications service and not solely an unregulated information
service, traditional open-access telephone policies apply to cable's data
service. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, an attorney with Media Access Project who
is representing the Center for Digital Democracy in the case, said he was
disappointed that the court agreed to hear the case. "The outcome of this
case will -- quite literally -- determine the future of the Internet as we
know it. If the Supreme Court rules against Internet open access, cable
companies will be able to block content at will for political and financial
reasons and deny the public the ability to choose among competing Internet
providers," Schwartzman said. FCC Chairman Michael Powell said, "High-speed
Internet connections are not telephones, and I'm glad the Supreme Court has
agreed to review the 9th Circuit's ruling that they are. The 9th Circuit's
decision would have grave consequences for the future and availability of
high-speed Internet connections in this country. As the Commission is
uniquely charged with the task of promoting the deployment of such advanced
services to the public, we look forward to our opportunity to present our
case before the high court."
Cable attorneys said the court has scheduled oral arguments for March 23,
but that date could change. A decision is expected to be released by June,
before the court's summer recess.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA485203.html?display=Breaking+News
(requires subscription)
http://www.mediaaccess.org/press/BrandXRelease.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254990A1.doc
More coverage --
* TV Week
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=6853
** For more reaction to this decision, see Brand X Comments below **
BUSH SIGNS NET ACCESS TAX BAN INTO LAW
On Friday, President Bush signed into law a bill that renews a temporary
ban on Internet access taxes. "It's an important step forward in bridging
the economic digital divide," said Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican
and a bill sponsor who attended the signing ceremony at the White House
complex. "This measure will help make sure for those of lower income and
those who live in small towns and rural areas that they can get connected
more easily to broadband," he said.
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Andy Sullivan]
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JTXW2QB53HMXQCRBAELC...
See more at:
http://allen.senate.gov/?c=story&story=2004120366016.625
ARTISTS AND MUSICIANS ARE ENTHUSIASTIC INTERNET USERS
The first large-scale surveys of the Internet's impact on artists and
musicians reveal that they are embracing the Web as a tool to improve how
they make, market, and sell their creative works. They eagerly welcome new
opportunities that are provided by digital technology and the Internet. At
the same time, they believe that unauthorized online file sharing is wrong
and that current copyright laws are appropriate, though there are some
major divisions among them about what constitutes appropriate copying and
sharing of digital files. Their overall judgment is that unauthorized
online file-sharing does not pose a major threat to creative industries:
Two-thirds of artists say peer-to-peer file sharing poses a minor threat or
no threat at all to them. Across the board, among those who are both
successful and struggling, the artists and musicians we surveyed are more
likely to say that the Internet has made it possible for them to make more
money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect
their work from piracy or unlawful use. Surveys by the Pew Internet &
American Life Project show there are 32 million Americans who consider
themselves artists and about 10 million earn at least some level of
compensation from their performances, songs, paintings, videos, creative
writing, and other art. The report includes special analysis of "Paid
Artists," those respondents who are musicians, writers and filmmakers and
earn some income from their art.
[SOURCE: Pew Internet & American Life Project, AUTHOR: Mary Madden]
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/142/report_display.asp
Pew File-Sharing Survey Gives a Voice to Artists
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Tom Zeller]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/arts/06down.html
(requires registration)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=5CT0KTO1O0LYYCRBAELC...
OWNERSHIP
8-YEAR OLD BASIC LAW MAY BE OUTDATED ALREADY
There's a lot of talk of rewriting the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But
for all the talk, there remain significant impediments to a quick overhaul.
In the first place, no consensus has emerged on many of the most important
issues now confronting policy makers, notably how to regulate the new
Internet telephone services or to fix the ailing program that provides
billions of dollars for universal telephone service. Second, the
administration has not made rewriting the act a priority. Finally, House
Republican leaders and their counterparts in the Senate have different
ideas and priorities. "There is a consensus that a train wreck is
approaching, and that there need to be some changes," said Blair Levin, a
regulatory analyst at Legg Mason and former senior official at the Federal
Communications Commission. "But there is no consensus about a myriad of
details."
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Stephen Labaton]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/business/businessspecial2/06telecom.ht...
(requires registration)
HOW REGULATORS RESHAPED THE WAY COMPANIES RUN
In a collection of short articles looking at Insurance, mutual funds,
software and media, the Times considers how government action changed the
rules for each industry. The media article focuses on Big Media and efforts
at the FCC to allow for Bigger Media. In the coming weeks, the largest
media conglomerates and the FCC will decide (how?) to appeal the
Philadelphia federal court decision that threw out the FCC's 2003 attempt
to loosen media ownership rules. The new rules would have allowed the same
company to own up to three television stations, eight radio stations, a
cable operator and a newspaper in the same market.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Stephen Labaton]
(http://www.nytimes.com/)
(requires registration)
BUSH MAY SPUR MORE NEWSPAPER CONSOLIDATION
Four more years could mean... more media ownership consolidation? Many
media companies are hopeful that the Bush administration and a
Republican-controlled Congress will help encourage the adoption of a 2003
plan to relax rules that ban media conglomerates from owning television
stations and newspapers in the same market. The announcement from
family-controlled Pulitzer last week that it is exploring options for a
sale struck some as odd. The controversial new rules proposed last year by
the Federal Communications Commission that, among other things, would allow
cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations have been in limbo since
June, when a U.S. appeals court blocked them from taking effect. That means
that the most strategically logical Pulitzer acquirers -- Gannett Co. and
Tribune Co., which each own a TV station in St. Louis -- will have to
gamble that the rules eventually will be loosened, if they choose to bid.
"What we have here is a certain level of risk, which on some level
diminishes the price," said Blair Levin, a former FCC official who is now
regulatory strategy analyst at Legg Mason. "People have been waiting for
some time for the cross-ownership issue to be resolved. Maybe people are
finally just saying, 'Okay, we're going to roll the dice and see what
happens.' Bush getting re-elected may have given them some comfort."
[SOURCE: Boston Globe/Associated Press]
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/12/03/bush_may_spur_more_ne...
INDECENCY/CENSORSHIP
WHEN IS A DIRTY SHOW INDECENT?
To be hit with a fine, a program must first be found to shock, titillate or
pander to the audience. Second, it must be graphic in its depiction of
sexual or excretory activities, and finally, it must be found to violate
community standards. One First Amendment lawyer argues that broadcasters
might find it impossible to sort out how the FCC decides when a program has
crossed any of these three hurdles. The FCC has been going to great lengths
to justify recent decisions for or against a fine, and the Commission makes
clear that there's no hard and fast rule: context is key. But even FCC
Commissioner Michael Copps, the Commission's most ardent indecency foe,
thinks enforcement is inconsistent and warns of creating different
standards for television and radio. Industry lawyers counter that the FCC's
context reviews are wildly unpredictable and sometimes don't occur at all
-- they are likely to attack the perceived inconsistency and, they hope,
derail the indecency crackdown.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Bill McConnell]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA485336?display=The+Beat&refer...
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
See also:
Fox Broadcasting Challenges Indecency Fine
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=6851
YESTERDAY'S FCC CAN TEACH US A LESSON IN FREE SPEECH
[Commentary] It might be useful for us, and the FCC, to stop, take a breath
and look back 60-plus years, when another call for censorship swept the
land. On Oct. 30, 1938, Orson Welles' Mercury Theater of the Air performed
a radio version of H. G. Wells' "War of the Worlds," the famous story of
Martians invading the Earth. Over one million radio listeners believed the
drama in the form of a newscast was real. The public demanded the FCC do
something. But the FCC did nothing at all. Partially this was because,
having never foreseen such a crisis, the Commissioners simply didn't know
how to respond. But there were others who said that punishing artists could
have a chilling effect on art. Still others argued that, in an era of
fascist repression of speech, America needed to set an example of freedom
for all the world to see. Which brings us back to 2004. We live in a world
of censorship aplenty. Al Jazeera refuses to show the execution of Margaret
Hassan; Russia gobbles up anti-Putin media outlets; China and Iran jam
Internet sites. Shouldn't America still be the country which set the
standard of open, free media, without the threat of censorship? Shouldn't
Michael Powell and today's FCC show the wisdom of their predecessors in
1938, and back off?
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Cynthia Bass, novelist]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/1...
QUICKLY
ADVOCACY GROUPS BLUR MEDIA LINES
Communications scholars cringe at the notion that lobbying groups are
obscuring or playing down their participation in publications and programs
that push a narrow point of view. "People judge communication by its source
so when you deny people full knowledge of that source of information they
are losing something important about evaluating the message," said Kathleen
Hall Jamison, dean of the University of Southern California's Annenberg
School for Communication. Geneva Overholser of the University of Missouri's
journalism school's Washington bureau said anything less than thorough
disclosure "is deceitful and imbalanced." Otherwise, she said, citizens
"don't have enough information to judge" publications or broadcasts.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Jeffrey H. Birnbaum]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38184-2004Dec5.html
(requires registration)
WIDE OPEN FUTURE
The percentage of homes tuning in to high-definition television (HDTV)
programs is poised to make a big leap beginning in 2006: from 30% of all
homes to about 50% of all U.S. homes by the end of 2007, according to the
Consumer Electronics Association. That's more than 50 million HDTV sets by
2007. B&C has a special report on digital television this week, including
information on consumer buying habits. Right now, only about 3 million
homes have high-definition TV, though many millions more think they do. See
the URLs below for more.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Ken Kerschbaumer/Kevin Downey]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA485286.html?display=Feature&r...
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA485285.html?display=Feature&r...
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
PUBLIC RADIO GET A CHECKUP FROM CPB
In a November study, "Having It All," a consulting firm found that 45% of
all public radio stations were operating in the red in 2003. But the same
report finds that public radio stations can achieve superior financial
health and, at the same time, provide excellent service to their audience.
Stations are not forced to choose between one objective or the other. They
can have both. Release of the report kicks off a broad review of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding priorities for public radio.
A series of panels will address the system's direction and future.
[SOURCE: Current, AUTHOR: Mike Janssen/Jeremy Egner]
(http://www.current.org/)
http://www.cpb.org/radio/stations/havingitall_radioreport_04.pdf
BROADCAST NEWS CAN STILL TRUMP THE WEB
[Commentary] While the Big 3 network evening newscasts continue to attract
an aggregate of 25 million viewers or more each night, they will not be
lightly cast aside. The audience for all-day, all-week cable news channels,
especially for their straight newscasts rather than their interview shows,
special reports and shouting matches, is nowhere near that. Many people may
use the Web for news -- especially the free sites of newspapers -- but how
long will they be able to get that news without paying for it?
[SOURCE: TV Week, AUTHOR: Reuven Frank, former president of NBC]
http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=26579
WI-FI FOR EVERYONE?
[Commentary] The Pennsylvania law restricting municipal broadband networks
isn't all that bad, McCullagh writes. The guiding spirit behind the law is
that the proper role of government should be carefully circumscribed to
providing what private companies can't. Police, courts and roads arguably
fall into that category. Wireless service doesn't.
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
http://news.com.com/Wi-Fi+for+everyone/2010-7351-5476718.html
PUBLIC INTEREST COALITION SUPPORTS UNLICENSED SPECTRUM USE
Last week a national coalition of consumer, education, media reform and
community wireless networks filed comments urging the FCC to immediately
provide local Internet service providers and consumer WiFi devices with
unlicensed access to empty TV channels on a market-by-market basis. The
empty TV channels occupy "beachfront" spectrum worth tens of billions of
dollars. Yesterday was the deadline for comments on the FCC's proposed
rule opening unassigned TV channels for WiFi and other unlicensed broadband
technologies. "We strongly support FCC Chairman Powell's effort to
reallocate prime spectrum from broadcast to affordable broadband, thereby
opening wasted airwaves to be shared by wireless service providers and
consumers to help close the digital divide in under-served areas," said
Michael Calabrese, vice president of the New America Foundation, a
Washington think tank that initiated the proposal. New America and Media
Access Project, a public interest law firm, drafted the comments.
[SOURCE: New America Foundation Press Release]
http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_File_2076_1.pdf
BEIJING LOVES THE WEB UNTIL THE WEB TALKS BACK
As the number of people online has quintupled over the last four years, the
government has shown itself to be committed to two competing goals:
strategically clamping deploying the Internet to economic advantage, while
clamping down -- using surveillance, filters and prison sentences -- on
undesirable content and use.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Tom Zeller]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/business/businessspecial2/06net.html
(requires registration)
TRYING TO REACH CUSTOMERS IN THE ERA OF E-MAIL SUSPICION
Will 2005 be the year of the unanswered e-mail? Given increased instances
on Internet fraud, especially a form of identity theft called "phishing,"
people may grow more and more reluctant to open unexpected email.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Bob Tedeschi]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/business/businessspecial2/06secure.html
(requires registration)
FOX WILL BECOME MAIN NEWS SOURCE FOR CLEAR CHANNEL
News Corp.'s Fox News has reached an agreement to become the primary news
provider to radio giant Clear Channel. Under the terms of the five-year
deal, which starts next year, as many as 172 of Clear Channel's news and
talk stations could eventually carry Fox's radio service, which includes
news updates of up to five minutes per hour and syndicated talk shows by
some of its cable news personalities.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Joe Flint joe.flint( at )wsj.com]
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110229064974891515,00.html?mod=todays...
(requires subscription)
FCC'S POWELL TO DELAY DIGITAL-TV VOTE, AIDES SAY
You might ask how you can accelerate something by delaying a vote on it,
but that's how things (don't) work in DC. Apparently, FCC Chairman Michael
Powell is planning to push back 'til March a vote on a plan that would help
end by 2009 the nation's conversion to digital-only television
broadcasting. They vote had been targeted for the FCC's Dec 15 meeting, but
the dominant topic that day will be phone competition rules. In delaying
the vote, Chairman Powell may get enough time to gain support for the
digital TV transition plan in Congress and within the TV industry.
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Neil Roland nroland( at )bloomberg.net]
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=a_iypPBKCFMs&refer...
FCC Chairman Michael Powell is not funny.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA485313?display=Breaking+News&...
BRAND X COMMENTS
Statement of Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital
Democracy, on the decision of the Supreme Court to review the "Brand X"
open access case: "This case is nothing less than a battle for the soul of
the Internet--and for the public's First Amendment rights in the broadband
era. While the cable industry is intent on transforming the Internet into
an extension of its tightly controlled cable business, it is critical that
we maintain an open, nondiscriminatory platform for the exchange of ideas
and information. The Internet must not become the preserve of any one
media or telecom industry. Rather, it should reflect the highest
aspirations of our democracy: the free flow of information, unimpeded
access to all manner of content, and a platform for the broadest diversity
of viewpoints."
See also: Next Stop: Supreme Court. Review of the "Brand X" Case will
shape broadband's future.
http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washingtonwatch/BrandXSCreview.html
[SOURCE: Center for Digital Democracy]
http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/BrandXSC.html
Supreme Court Grants Cert in the Brand X Case
The Supreme Court's decision to grant cert in the Brand X case sets the
stage to finally remove a barrier to competition and consumer choice on the
high-speed Internet. For almost a decade the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has ignored the Communications Act and allowed cable
operators to force consumers to pay twice to choose their Internet Service
Provider when accessing the high-speed Internet with cable modem service.
We are confident that when the Court examines the facts, it will decide to
uphold the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling that affirmed the critical
principle of open, non-discriminatory networks as the cornerstone of
competition in communications markets. Consumers should be allowed to enjoy
the increased choice and lower prices that come with a more competitive
broadband market, as they do in the traditional "dial up" Internet market.
We believe that the Supreme Court will uphold the 9th Circuit ruling, which
ordered the FCC to remove this barrier to a competitive market, where
consumers can select from a broad array of providers.
[SOURCE: Consumers Union Press Statement]
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/001698.html...
Statement of Robert Sachs, President & CEO National Cable &
Telecommunications Association Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision
to Review the Brand X Case: "We are pleased by the Supreme Court's decision
to review this significant case and are optimistic that the Court will
affirm the FCC's decision that cable modem service is an interstate
information service, fostering a deregulatory environment for cable
high-speed Internet access. Establishing a deregulatory environment for
cable modem service is critical to the universal deployment in the U.S. of
broadband services, including emerging services such as Voice over Internet
Protocol service. This case presents a fundamental question of
communications law, carefully decided by the FCC and then overturned by a
circuit court that simply ignored what the agency had done, refusing to
accord the FCC the deference Supreme Court precedent requires. Classifying
cable modem service as an interstate information service, as the FCC did,
puts this innovative service on the right deregulatory path."
[SOURCE: National Cable & Telecommunications Association]
http://www.ncta.com/press/press.cfm?PRid=556&showArticles=ok
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online news summary service
provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday through
Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments,
policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are
factually accurate, their often informal tone does not always represent the
tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang
(headlines( at )benton.org) -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------