For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm
MEDIA & POLITICS
Prime-time Coverage to Get Even Scarcer this Year
Poll Shows Tough Road for Broadband
Kids Learn ABCs of Politics on the Web
CABLE
Ailes Takes Aim at Critics and Competition
Some See 'A La Carte=92 Spiking Rates
Minorities Slam A La Carte
Back in the Day, Cable Tried Carte
CONTENT
Set for a Showdown
Major Consumer Groups See Senate Copyright Legislation as
'Seriously Flawed'
VoIP LEGISLATION
Committee Vote Underscores Telecom Regulatory Problems
Senate Committee Seeks More Information on FBI Problems
Intercepting Internet Communications
CompTel/ASCENT Comments on Senate VoIP Bill
USTA Statement on Mark-up of Sununu VoIP Bill
MEDIA & POLITICS
PRIME-TIME COVERAGE TO GET EVEN SCARCER THIS YEAR
More people than ever will have easy access to a mountain of information=20
from a variety of media -- newspapers, radio, television and the Internet.=
=20
But millions more Americans still turn to the networks for news than go to=
=20
other sources and for people who can't afford pay TV or Internet access,=20
news and images of the party conventions will be scarce. Here's a look at=20
planned coverage. 1) Broadcast TV. ABC, CBS and NBC each plan to air just=20
three hours -- spread over four nights -- of the Democratic convention=20
during the evenings. But PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer will broadcast=20
at least three hours of convention coverage each evening. 'Doesn't a=20
broadcast license still carry a public responsibility?'' to air important=20
news events over free airwaves, asks Thomas Patterson, a professor at=20
Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He argues that=20
the networks, ''by taking themselves out of it, are substantially affecting=
=20
interest in the conventions.'' 2) Cable news networks will offer coverage=20
throughout the days and evenings. C-Span will offer gavel-to-gavel=20
coverage. CNN, CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC and Telemundo will all have=20
substantial presences. Non-traditional news outlets such as MTV, Comedy=20
Central and ESPN2 will also produce shows from the conventions. 3) The=20
Internet. Information will be pouring onto the Internet via AOL, Yahoo and=
=20
Web sites managed by media giants; lone ''bloggers'' who post their=20
opinions on Web logs, or diaries; the presidential campaigns and both major=
=20
political parties.4) Newspapers. The Los Angeles Times, New York Times,=20
Chicago Tribune, USA TODAY and newspapers large and small have constructed=
=20
mini-newsrooms in a pavilion outside the convention center. 5) Radio.=20
National Public Radio will broadcast for three hours from the convention=20
each evening.
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR:Mark Memmott]
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040726/6395454s.htm
See Also:
Political Papers Become Dailies to Blanket the Conventions
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Jacques Steinberg]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/26/business/media/26paper.html
(requires registration)
POLL SHOWS TOUGH ROAD FOR BROADBAND
A nationwide poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people with Internet=20
access, found that 72% of respondents support government efforts to make=20
high-speed Internet access universally available. But backing for the=20
activist policy has stalled on the question of who pays -- and how much.=20
Most respondents agreed that it was important or extremely important for=20
all Americans to have Internet access, whether by broadband or dial-up=20
connection. But, by a margin of 56% to 44%, they opposed any government=20
plan to directly subsidize the extension of broadband access to rural areas=
=20
or for low-income citizens. Similarly, nearly 70% was against paying higher=
=20
access fees to fund the expansion of broadband to those areas. Among the=20
poll respondents who already have broadband connections, roughly 63% said a=
=20
new $1 general government tax would not affect a decision to keep or=20
subscribe to broadband. About 19 percent said it would be less likely to=20
sign up for broadband service, while another 14.5% would be more likely to=
=20
stay with or return to dial-up rather than shoulder the extra charge.
See more at the URL below.
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Charles Cooper ]
http://news.com.com/Poll+shows+tough+road+for+broadband/2100-1034_3-5273...
html?tag=3Dnefd.hed
KIDS LEARN ABCs OF POLITICS ON THE WEB
While about half of college-age students are registered to vote, only one=20
in five actually does. (By comparison, three out of five people over the=20
age of 55 vote, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.) So to help engage=20
younger people, many civic organizations are using the Internet to reach=20
out to Americans who are still too young to vote. The Council for=20
Excellence in Government runs a Web-based campaign=20
(http://www.takeyourkidstovote.org) urging parents to take kids to the=20
polls so that they're more likely to vote when they grow up. Kids Voting=20
USA (http://www.kidsvotingusa.org) involves kids in the election process by=
=20
installing about 20,000 youth polling sites at official voting centers in=20
29 states on Election Day. Adopt-a-Vote (http://www.kidsvote2004.com) is=20
working to give children a voice in the 2004 race. The program asks parents=
=20
to pledge to vote according to their children's preference after discussing=
=20
the candidates and the issues with them.
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Sue Zeidler]
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3DMG0MGQTHFAHGMCRBAE...
A?type=3DinternetNews&storyID=3D5764423
CABLE
AILES TAKES AIM AT CRITICS AND COMPETITION
The voluble Fox News Channel Chairman Roger Ailes responds to a spate of=20
attacks on his top-rated cable news network. 1) On Moveon.org and Common=20
Cause petition that the Fox News Channel's "fair and balanced" slogan is=20
false advertising: "I'm happy with MoveOn.org and Common Cause and those=20
other clowns. They drove our ratings up 10%. How do they call it Common=20
Cause? I never got an application. MoveOn.org needs to move on from=20
bitching about us being fair and balanced. They're lying about their=20
marketing. Their assumption is people made us No. 1 because people are=
stupid."
On the documentary _Outfoxed_: "Any news organization that doesn't support=
=20
our position on copyright is crazy. Next week, we could take a month's=20
worth of video from CNN International and do a documentary "Why does CNN=20
hate America?" You wouldn't even have to do the hatchet job Outfoxed was.=20
You damn well could run it without editing. CNN International, Al-Jazeera=20
and BBC are the same in how they report=97mostly that America is wrong and=
=20
bad. Everybody should stand up and say these people don't have the right to=
=20
take our product anymore. They don't have a right to take a year's worth of=
=20
Dan Rather or Ted Koppel and edit it any way they want. It puts journalism=
=20
at risk."
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Staff]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA438680?display=3DTop+of+the+W...
ttp://www.reuters.com/newsChannel.jhtml?type=3DtechnologyNews
(requires subscription)
SOME SEE 'A LA CARTE' SPIKING RATES
Is "a la carte" simply a French word for rate regulation? That's what some=
=20
Washington policy people are suggesting. If cable operators are forced to=20
offer a la carte pricing options along with tiers, they could easily=20
protect their tier business by charging astronomical prices for a la carte=
=20
channels, making them an unrealistic alternative. But if the operators=20
undermine the goals of an a la carte scheme, might Congress or the Federal=
=20
Communications Commission step in to set the price of a la carte channels?=
=20
Mon Dieu! House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman=20
Fred Upton (R-MI) put the question to Consumers Union public policy guru=20
Gene Kimmelman, asking, specifically what would happen if a local ABC=20
affiliate asked a cable operator for $10/month to carry the station's=20
signals. In his response, Mr. Kimmelman predicted that cable operators=20
would reject ABC=92s pricing demands and consumers would rebel if told they=
=20
had to pay $10 for just one network. =93I would be hard-pressed to see them=
=20
justify in the marketplace those kinds of prices,=94 Kimmelman said. =93I=
can't=20
imagine cable operators would be willing to pay that. There would be a lot=
=20
of marketplace pressure for those prices to actually go down.=94 Kimmelman=
=20
added that ABC was probably a bad example. =93We are suggesting you keep a=
=20
basic tier so that broadcast channels wouldn't be affected by that,=94 he=20
said. The basic tier, which includes local TV stations, remains=20
price-regulated by state and local governments unless an operator can=20
demonstrate to the FCC that it=92s subject to effective competition, which=
=20
typically means direct-broadcast satellite operators and overbuilders have=
=20
attained 15% household penetration in the market.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA438582?display=3DTop+Stories
(requires subscription)
MINORITIES SLAM A LA CARTE
Mandated a la carte would exact a punishing toll on programming aimed at=20
racial and ethnic minorities. cable executives have been trying to make=20
this point, but the message is gaining more legitimacy as minority=20
politicians business organizations, and political groups start to deliver=20
it, too. One of cable=92s strengths over broadcasting is its capacity to=20
create programming that closely tracks the nation=92s demographic profile.=
As=20
minority groups grow in size, cable networks inevitably emerge to serve=20
their needs or cable operators import foreign channels that provide=20
programming in a language that discrete sets of viewers can understand.=20
=93Leveraging the success of larger, more established networks allows cable=
=20
operators to ensure that stations with smaller audiences get heard. An a la=
=20
carte price model, in contrast, is a tyranny of the majority,=94 the New=
York=20
City Council=92s Black, Hispanic and Asian Caucus said in FCC comments two=
=20
weeks ago. Current cable rates shouldn't drive the debate, according to the=
=20
National Black Chamber of Commerce. =93The a la carte proposal seems=20
concerned only with pricing and not with the diversity that has flourished=
=20
on cable and satellite networks. Diverse programming benefits the target=20
populations, but also gives all subscribers the opportunity to learn about=
=20
and enjoy other cultures and communities,=94 NBCC explained in its FCC=
comments.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA438581?display=3DPolicy
(requires subscription)
BACK IN THE DAY, CABLE TRIED CARTE
Forced a la carte is ridiculous... if it was needed, the marketplace would=
=20
offer it, right? Sure, that's the message now, but some years ago, the=20
cable industry embraced a la carte because it allowed operators to evade=20
federal rate controls and charge more for programming. In the early 1990s,=
=20
when the direct-broadcast satellite industry was just starting and the pay=
=20
TV market was a cable monopoly, several cable companies toyed with a la=20
carte, viewing it as a means of bypassing FCC rate controls. The FCC=92s=
rate=20
scheme called for price regulation of basic and expanded basic. Premium and=
=20
pay-per-view channels were exempt. But the FCC=92s rules left a void: What=
if=20
cable operators removed channels from expanded basic and offered them two=20
ways: a la carte and in a so-called a la carte package? Would the a la=20
carte package be rate regulated? Adelphia moved all 32 channels from its=20
expanded basic tier and offered them to a la carte and in an a la carte=20
package that was priced at levels higher than FCC rules would otherwise=20
allow. Comcast and Time warner followed suit, but with just four channels.=
=20
FCC review allowed TW and Comcast to proceed, but the Commission ruled that=
=20
Adelphia=92s move constituted evasion of its expanded-basic price caps. The=
=20
FCC ordered Adelphia to refund $2.45 million to 320,000 subscribers in=20
eight states. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the=
=20
D.C. Circuit.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA438584?display=3DPolicy
(requires subscription)
CONTENT
SET FOR A SHOWDOWN
As the FCC considers fines for the Super Bowl halftime show, Viacom's=20
co-President, Les Moonves, has indicated the company will fight the=20
Commission all the way to the Supreme Court. Any fine, Mr. Moonves insists,=
=20
would be "patently ridiculous, and we're not going to stand for it." Once=20
the FCC issues its "notice of apparent liability," Viacom will have 30 days=
=20
to ask it to reconsider. If the Commission stands by the decision and=20
Viacom refuses to pay, the Justice Department would have to take the=20
company to court in order to collect, forcing the federal government to=20
defend the sanction on what many say is shaky legal ground. Many First=20
Amendment lawyers predict that the issue will move to the Supreme Court,=20
which has never _definitively_ ruled on the FCC's authority to fine=20
stations or revoke licenses over indecency violations.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Bill McConnell]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA438636?display=3DWashington
(requires subscription)
MAJOR CONSUMER GROUPS SEE SENATE COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION AS 'SERIOUSLY FLAWED'
Legislation being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee could put=20
consumer access to new digital products, and technical innovation in=20
general, at risk, three major consumer groups said Thursday. In written=20
testimony submitted to the Judiciary Committee at its hearing on =93The=20
Intentional Inducement of Copyright Infringements Act of 2004=94 (S. 2560),=
=20
the three groups, Public Knowledge, Consumer Federation of America and=20
Consumers Union, said the bill =93is a profoundly flawed measure that=
creates=20
more confusion than it resolves, and that imposes a significant risk of=20
litigation that would effectively chill the development and deployment of=20
new technologies generally.=94 The groups also argued the legislation is at=
=20
odds with other parts of our public policy in which consumers are allowed=20
to own and use products as long as they are used legally. The groups=92=20
testimony said: =93The presumption should be that consumers are acting=20
lawfully with new digital tools, just as the presumption has always been=20
that consumers with access to photocopiers are not being 'induced' to=20
infringe." In addition, the groups disagreed with the testimony of Marybeth=
=20
Peters, the Registrar of Copyright, who suggested the landmark 1984 Sony=20
Betamax case, which allowed for home taping of TV programs for personal=20
use, should be revisited. According to the consumer groups: =93Even apart=
=20
from Ms. Peters=92s disturbing willingness to abandon or alter a legal=20
standard that has resulted in both greater consumer experience of=20
copyrighted works and an astonishing growth in profitable markets for=20
copyrighted works we note that one man=92s =91infringement tool=92 is=
another=20
man=92s iPod."
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge]
(http://www.publicknowledge.org/)
VoIP LEGISLATION
COMMITTEE VOTE UNDERSCORES TELECOM REGULATORY PROBLEMS
Jackson begins, "Senate Commerce Committee amendments to the voice-over-IP=
=20
bill sponsored by Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) probably will prevent the=20
legislation from becoming law, meaning it will be up to the FCC to=20
formulate VoIP policies for the near future." Although Sen Sununu's bill=20
aimed at treating VoIP as an information service, amendments attached to=20
the bill -- most notably, state-regulated access-charge and=20
universal-service obligations -- essentially would treat VoIP as a=20
telecommunications service and that's probably what will kill the=20
legislation. That means the FCC will decide VoIP's short-term regulatory=20
future. The majority there seems to favor pre-empting state regulators, but=
=20
a FCC decision would likely result in two years of litigation. There are=20
other questions with legal implications. If a VoIP call is carried over=20
privately owned networks -- and most will be to ensure quality -- does that=
=20
really qualify as an "Internet" application that is deserving of a free=20
pass on many taxes and regulations? If routing VoIP calls through other=20
states makes them inherently interstate, will long-distance be allowed to=20
bypass intrastate access fees on traditional telephony calls simply by=20
routing the call through a switch in a neighboring state? In both cases,=20
that's not an easy argument to make. The E911 issue also needs to be=
settled.
See more reactions to the VoIP bill below.
[SOURCE: Telephony's Regulation Insider, AUTHOR: Donny Jackson]
djackson( at )primediabusiness.com
(Not available online)
SENATE COMMITTEE SEEKS MORE INFORMATION ON FBI PROBLEMS INTERCEPTING=20
INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS
In passing a bill (S. 2281) that would impose a three-year moratorium on=20
state regulation of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services, the=20
Senate Commerce Committee added an amendment that would require the GAO and=
=20
the FCC to conduct studies analyzing law enforcement agencies' capabilities=
=20
for intercepting VOIP and other Internet communications. The Committee=20
specified that its action had no effect on CALEA, indicating that there was=
=20
not a sufficient factual record to determine how any law enforcement needs=
=20
for Internet surveillance should be addressed.
[SOURCE: Center for Democracy and Technology]
(http://www.cdt.org)
COMPTEL/ASCENT COMMENTS ON SENATE VOIP BILL
CompTel/ASCENT is encouraged that the Senate has begun serious debate on=20
the rollout of voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), and the impact such=20
services could have on the competitive options available to consumers=20
nationwide. However, we are disappointed in the success of efforts to=20
impose inappropriate obligations on this nascent technology. While=20
CompTel/ASCENT fully believes that thorny issues such as universal service=
=20
and the historic access charge regime need to undergo a complete overhaul=20
to better address current marketplace realities, we fear that premature=20
assessment of fees and taxes will undermine the potential of new=20
technologies that will revolutionize the way Americans communicate.
[SOURCE: CompTel/ASCENT Press Statement]
http://www.comptelascent.org/news/recent-news/072204.html
USTA STATEMENT ON MARK-UP OF SUNUNU BILL
While we appreciate Senator Sununu=92s efforts, this bill creates more=20
questions than answers. With dramatic changes in technology, Congress must=
=20
address all of the critical issues facing the industry in a comprehensive=20
way. By fast-tracking the needs of just one application in a diverse and=20
rapidly innovating marketplace, we deepen existing regulatory disparities=20
rather than lead to the true free marketplace in telecommunications that=20
consumers deserve today. USTA will continue to work with Congress toward=20
comprehensive reform that is pro-innovation rather than simply pro-VoIP."
[SOURCE: United States Telecom Association Press Release]
http://www.usta.org/news_releases.php?urh=3Dhome.news.nr2004_0722
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------