For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm
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. Headlines are compiled by=20
Kevin Taglang (headlines( at )benton.org) -- we welcome your comments.
POLITICS & BROADBAND
President Bush Touts Efforts to Promote Broadband
Rights of Way
Senate Debates Net Access Tax
Taxing High-Speed Services: A Quantification of the Effects on the
DSL Industry and Universal Service
Taxing the Net
CABLE
Why Your Cable Bill Is Soaring
Verizon=92s Tauke Sees Cable as Player on Capitol Hill
Broadcast Lobby=92s Indecent Posture: Asking for Big Public Hand-out
QUICKLY
Spitzer Criticizes Deal For Airwave Exchange
Second Thoughts on Creating Registry of Unwanted E-Mail
Qwest Drops Access Fees for Internet Phone Calls
MacArthur Foundation Awards $250,000 to OneWorld International
POLITICS & BROADBAND
PRESIDENT BUSH TOUTS EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BROADBAND
President Bush started to add detail to his proposed goal of universal=20
access to broadband by 2007. Speaking Monday in Minnesota, he listed some=20
of the ways the
Administration intends to meet the goal: 1) Streamline federal=20
rights-of-way permits. He said it =93makes sense=94 to =93increase access to=
=20
federal land for fiber optic cables and transmission towers.=94 =93One sure=
way=20
to hold things up is that the federal lands say, you can't build on us.=94=
2)=20
Promote new technology development including broadband-over-power-line=20
(BPL) technology. 3) Spectrum policy reform to free up more spectrum for=20
wireless broadband. 4) Avoid taxation. To ensure broadband is affordable,=20
he said, =93[w]e must not tax broadband access. If you want broadband access=
=20
throughout the country, Congress must ban tax on access.=94 Many of the=20
issues are already being addressed at various federal agencies, and=20
Congress began consideration of Internet tax ban on Monday.
Will broadband be an election year issue? White House spokesman Scott=20
McClellan briefed reporters about President Bush=92s broadband announcements=
=20
prior to
the speech aboard Air Force One on the way to Minneapolis. He then fielded=
=20
21 questions from reporters, according to a transcript, with none of them=20
addressing broadband. [And CJ still can't get the White House press to talk=
=20
about media ownership!]
[SOURCE: Communications Daily, AUTHOR: Patrick Ross]
(Not available online)
See full text of the President's remarks at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040426-6.html
Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3DNFOFLJ4AFOQTECRBAE...
Y?type=3DtechnologyNews&storyID=3D4944394§ion=3Dnews
News.com: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5200196.html?tag=3Dnefd.top
See also:
PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR AFFORDABLE BROADBAND ACCESS FAILS TO DEAL WITH=20
REAL ISSUES: "HIDDEN TAX, LACK OF CHOICE
President Bush=92s plan unveiled today to provide affordable high-speed=20
Internet access to all Americans by 2007 fails to address a primary hurdle=
=20
cited by consumer groups to achieving that goal: a =93hidden tax=94 the=20
administration allows cable operators to impose on customers by forcing=20
them to buy the services or packages they create to get access to the=20
Internet. =93We are encouraged to hear the President set a national goal of=
=20
affordable high-speed Internet for all, but unfortunately, he is not=20
focusing on the most important policy change necessary to achieve that goal=
=20
=AD eliminating the hidden tax the administration allows cable operators to=
=20
impose on consumers for broadband access,=94 said Gene Kimmelman, public=20
policy director of Consumers Union. Kimmelman is referring to the FCC=92s=20
policy of allowing cable operators to charge customers $55 to $75 a month=20
if customers want to use their own Internet Service Provider (ISP), rather=
=20
than the provider selected by the cable company in their broadband cable=20
package. About 13.7 million consumers currently receive their service from=
=20
cable companies. Since 2001, the cost of buying the services that connect a=
=20
cable customer to high-speed Internet access have increased three times the=
=20
rate of inflation. =93This policy of allowing cable operators to force=20
consumers to buy their services is absolutely contrary to the President=92s=
=20
goal of offering consumers affordable Internet access,=94 Kimmelman said.=20
=93This Administration policy produces neither genuine consumer choice nor=
=20
dynamic innovation, both of which are necessary to ensure affordable access=
=20
to the Internet for all Americans.=94
[SOURCE: Consumers Union Press Release]
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/001013.html...
e
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/0330%20bush%20broadband%20response%202...
RIGHTS OF WAY
In coordination with President Bush's remarks on broadband Monday, the NTIA=
=20
released the following report: To ensure that broadband providers are able=
=20
to obtain rights-of-way in a timely and cost-effective manner, the Bush=20
Administration formed a Federal Rights-of-Way Working Group to assess the=20
management of rights-of-way over lands under federal jurisdiction. The=20
report at the URL below contains the Working Group=92s findings and=20
recommendations for how the Federal Government can reform its approach to=20
rights-of-way management to help bring the promise of broadband to all=20
Americans, while ensuring that federal land managers fulfill their=20
important roles as stewards of our Nation=92s public property.
[SOURCE: National Telecommunications and Information Administration]
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2004/frow_04262004.htm
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/fedrow/index.html
SENATE DEBATES NET ACCESS TAX
By a 74-11 vote, senators agreed to begin a process climaxing in a final=20
vote expected later this week over whether to renew a lapsed ban that would=
=20
permanently prevent state and local governments from levying additional=20
taxes on dial-up, DSL (digital subscriber line), cable modem, wireless or=20
satellite access to the Internet. This vote "will determine to some extent=
=20
whether our e-mail, spam filters, Google searches, Web sites and instant=20
messages are singled out for discriminatory taxes," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)=20
said. "I cannot believe the Senate would subject e-mail, BlackBerrys, a=20
variety of technologies to discriminatory taxes." While senators were=20
making speeches in public, their aides were fiercely negotiating potential=
=20
compromises in private. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is trying to broker a deal=
=20
that would renew the tax moratorium for four years, instead of making it=20
permanent, and tweak the definitions so states could tax=20
voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. The House passed a bill=20
banning Internet taxation by voice vote in September.
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5200216.html?tag=3Dcd.top
WSJ:=20
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108302929664394348,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_page_one
WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44833-2004Apr26.html
nyt: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/politics/27INTE.html
TAXING HIGH SPEED SERVICES: A QUANTIFICATION OF THE EFFECTS ON THE DSL=20
INDUSTRY AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE
Curiously, on the day the Senate began deliberation on Internet taxation, a=
=20
new research report on the issue was released. The imposition of state and=
=20
local
telecommunications taxes on digital subscriber line (DSL) services would=20
slash federal Universal Service Fund (USF) contributions by $280 million=20
and lead to $4.3 billion in reduced industry revenues available for=20
investment in new union jobs and expanded availability of broadband=20
technologies, according to a new study released today by the New Millennium=
=20
Research Council (NMRC). The NMRC study, =93Taxing High-Speed Services: A=20
Quantification of the Effects on the DSL Industry and Universal Service,=94=
=20
was written by economist Stephen Pociask. Mr. Pociask is president of=20
TeleNomic Research, a consulting firm specializing in public policy=20
analysis for information technology industries. Pociask said: =93DSL service=
=20
is price-sensitive and an increase in taxes would produce an increase in=20
price, leading to a significant reduction in demand and a decrease in total=
=20
industry revenues.=94 He explained that consumers would migrate to=
tax-exempt=20
cable-modem service, or abandon high-speed access altogether. =93Since cable=
=20
operators do not pay into the Universal Service Fund, an increase in=20
cable-modem demand would not help state and local governments raise taxes=20
nor would it help fund universal service programs.=94 USF contributions are=
=20
paid on all interstate telecommunications services and are used to support=
=20
telecom service for low income customers, underwrite network development in=
=20
high-cost areas, and fund Internet services for schools, libraries, and=20
rural healthcare providers. Pociask warned: =93Because universal service=20
programs are already under financial strain, this substantial contribution=
=20
loss would put these social programs in serious jeopardy.=94
[SOURCE: New Millennium Research Council Press Release]
http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/news/042604release.pdf
See full report at:
http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/042604report.pdf
TAXING THE NET
An editorial that supports President Bush's call for a ban on taxing=20
Internet access, particularly the high-speed phone, cable and satellite=20
varieties known as broadband. The senators who oppose the ban are called "a=
=20
small pro-tax contingent of Senate Republicans." The problem, the WSJ=20
writes, is not lack of revenue at the state and local level, but a problem=
=20
with the government entities reigning in spending. The goal of "pro-tax=20
Republicans" is to block any federal pre-emption of state and local=20
authority to tax Internet access and, ultimately, electronic commerce. This=
=20
is precisely why we have a Commerce Clause, the editorial states. It was=20
devised to prevent state and local entities from taxing interstate=20
commerce. The Internet's unique architecture and decentralized nature lend=
=20
themselves to the very type of tax abuse that the Constitution guards=20
against. The editorial concludes: The real problem with anything short of a=
=20
permanent ban is that it keeps the issue alive to be debated down the road.=
=20
That creates uncertainty, which is the last thing the industry needs. A=20
permanent ban would be more difficult to resurrect. It would also=20
incentivize a telecom sector that stands ready to invest billions to=20
upgrade networks and make high-speed Internet access available to all=20
American homes and small businesses.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal Editorial Staff]
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108302270893994195,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_opinion
(requires subscription)
CABLE
WHY YOUR CABLE BILL IS SOARING
This is not from David Letterman's home office in DeKalb, but here's the=20
Top Ten reasons cable bills are higher or, as BW calls them, the ten=20
secrets the cable industry would like you not to know. 1) Higher=20
programming costs and spending on infrastructure to provide digital service=
=20
are bulking up bills. 2) If cable concerns faced more competition, bills=20
would be lower. 3) If you want all the bells and whistles, buy as many=20
services as you can from one company. 4) Cable operators know you watch=20
only about 15 of the hundreds of channels you receive. But if they let you=
=20
pick and choose the channels you want, it would mess up their whole=20
business model. 5) If people could pick and choose only the channels they=20
want, all those less popular channels likely would go out of business. 6)=20
You can get just a premium channel without paying for dozens of other=20
channels. 7) If you don't go digital, you can save a lot of money. 8) To=20
make digital cable worth the extra money, you may want to get a digital=20
video recorder (DVR). 9) To really save money, skip cable, and buy your=20
favorite shows at retail on DVD. 10) [This isn't really a reason, but,=20
perhaps, a remedy] Want to complain? Contact your "local franchising=20
authority," or LFA. This is the governmental body that negotiates with the=
=20
cable outfit to provide local service. Each month you pay a fee to this=20
agency, which shows up as a line on your bill, so feel free to contact them=
=20
if you're unhappy with service. The phone number should be on the back of=20
your bill. You may also want to contact a congressional representative.=20
With consumers increasingly feeling gouged by high cable bills, you might=20
find a willing ear from local politicians.
[SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Amey Stone]
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2004/nf20040426_7542_db01...
m
VERIZON'S TAUKE SEES CABLE AS PLAYER ON CAPITOL HILL
Tom Tauke, Verizon's top Washington lobbyist, told a New America Foundation=
=20
audience that the cable industry would likely turn to Congress if the=20
courts insist that cable operators must share their broadband facilities=20
with competing Internet-service providers. Both the Baby Bells and cable=20
operators could gain broadband deregulation from the FCC despite court=20
setbacks and Mr. Tauke said he preferred the FCC route over the=20
unpredictability of the legislative process. While current law provides the=
=20
FCC with amply authority to shape new broadband policies, Mr. Tauke argued=
=20
that Congress might have to pass a law ensuring that state and local=20
governments could not regulate voice-over-Internet-protocol services.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA413036?display=3DBreaking+News
(requires subscription)
See also: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=3Devent&EveID=3D363
BROADCAST LOBBY'S INDECENT POSTURE: ASKING FOR BIG PUBLIC HAND-OUT
CDD's take on the current debate on whether or not to grant multicasting=20
must-carry rights on cable systems for digital television broadcasters.=20
With DTV technology, today's analog broadcasters will be able to=20
simultaneously broadcast multiple (4-6) programming streams while now they=
=20
can only do one.
"Television broadcasters have their special-interest eyes on a political=20
prize that will enrich the industry with tens of billions of dollars in new=
=20
revenues. They are now political arm-twisting both the FCC and Congress to=
=20
help achieve this goal. Once again, the public will be forced to bankroll=
=20
a handful of big media companies, who will be guaranteed a secure economic=
=20
future. And once again, the public--including children, families, and=20
communities--will be left to pay the tab while getting nothing back in=
return."
"Multicasting must-carry will not provide the public with any real benefit,=
=20
unless policies are first put in place to ensure that broadcasters must=20
effectively serve =93the public interest, convenience, and necessity.=94 =
That=20
promise, made back in 1934, must now be honored in the digital TV=20
age. FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps have already vowed to do=20
so. Will Commissioners Martin, Abernathy and Chairman Powell do the same,=
=20
or will they once again promote broadcasters=92 interests over the=
public=92s?"
[SOURCE: Center for Digital Democracy]
http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/marketwatch/NABhandout.html
QUICKLY
SPITZER CRITICIZES DEAL FOR AIRWAVES EXCHANGE
New York state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer yesterday urged the FCC to=20
sharply increase the amount Nextel should pay for a swath of=20
higher-frequency spectrum it would get in exchange for moving its airwaves=
=20
to minimize radio interference with public safety communications. In a=20
letter to the Commission, AG Spitzer wrote, ""Nextel must be required to=20
compensate the United States Treasury for the spectrum it receives in the=20
amount that would have been received at an auction of that spectrum."
"I am concerned that this proposal, if adopted, would result in a windfall=
=20
to one company at the cost of billions of dollars to taxpayers," wrote=20
Spitzer, who is best known for bringing cases against investment banks and=
=20
mutual funds on behalf of investors hurt by deceptive practices. He added=20
that "Nextel is obligated to operate in the public interest -- it does not=
=20
need to be compensated in the form of $5 billion of free spectrum for=20
complying with federal law."
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Yuki Noguchi]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44859-2004Apr26.html
(requires registration)
SECOND THOUGHTS ON CREATING REGISTRY OF UNWANTED EMAIL
In recent weeks, the Federal Trade Commission has been soliciting public=20
comment about the pros and cons of a Do Not E-mail list, and a report as=20
well as a timetable is due to Congress in mid-June. Although at first=20
thought appealing, Bounds' columns cautions against the potential effects=20
for small businesses who could benefit from reduced advertising costs and=20
the potential ineffectiveness of a list without significant enforcement=20
efforts and better tracking technology. Will small businesses have the=20
resources needed to keep their lists up-to-date? Will they be scared off=20
from using email because of potentially expensive litigation? And it will=20
be hard to enforce a Do Not E-mail list until spammers play by the rules.=20
"They take great pains to hide their identity, and it makes it difficult to=
=20
track for law enforcement," says FTC attorney Katie Harrington-McBride.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Wendy Bounds Wendy.Bounds( at )wsj.com]
(http://wsj.com/)
(requires subscription)
QWEST DROPS ACCESS FEES FOR INTERNET PHONE CALLS
Phone giant Qwest said on Monday it would no longer levy connection fees on=
=20
calls made to customers on its network from Internet phone services. Qwest=
=20
said it was making the move to promote true VOIP services, and the offer=20
did not apply to efforts by some phone companies to route calls partially=20
over the Internet. The company also said it would allow VOIP companies to=20
buy circuits to accept incoming calls from customers in Qwest's 14-state=20
region.
[SOURCE: Reuters]
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=3DinternetNews&storyID=3D4...
34§ion=3Dnews
MACARTHUR FOUNDATION AWARDS $250,000 TO ONEWORLD INTERNATIONAL
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation has announced a grant of=
=20
$250,000 to the OneWorld International Foundation in support of its online=
=20
media network designed to help civil society organizations bring greater=20
attention to human rights and sustainable development issues worldwide.=20
OneWorld is an online gateway into news and commentary from a network of=20
6,500 nongovernmental organizations, radio broadcasters and video producers=
=20
working to improve peoples=92 lives around the world. Using the newest=20
communications technologies, OneWorld has made it possible for these=20
organizations to upload information they have generated=97including text,=20
images, audio and video content=97onto the OneWorld web portal,=20
www.oneworld.net, for sharing with global and local audiences. OneWorld has=
=20
become a resource for many mainstream media outlets looking for information=
=20
and news stories from fresh perspectives. Operating in 12 languages,=20
OneWorld Centers in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe publish country=20
and regional editions of the OneWorld web portal. A radio and video news=20
service, thematic portal sites on HIV/AIDS and the digital divide, and the=
=20
Open Knowledge Network (OKN) help complement OneWorld=92s work towards=20
achieving the Millennium Development Goals, which commit the international=
=20
community to an expanded vision of development. The OKN was designed to=20
help remote communities access information to improve their lives and to=20
help disseminate local knowledge to a global audience.
OneWorld United States, based in Washington, D.C., is a joint venture of=20
the Benton Foundation and OneWorld International
[SOURCE: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation]
http://www.macfound.org/announce/press_releases/4_23_2004_1.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------