In the Matter of A La Carte and Themed Programming and Pricing Options for=
=20
Programming Distribution on Cable Television and Direct Broadcast Satellite=
=20
Systems, the FCC has extended until August 13, 2004 the date for reply=20
comments to be filed. The Commission hopes the extensions will result in a=
=20
more thorough record and analysis of the issues and provide parties with=20
the opportunity to respond to matters raised in the Media Bureau's=20
symposium on A La Carte scheduled for July 29, 2004 (see=20
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248765A1.doc).
For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm
TV & POLITICS
The Networks Don't Like This Reality Show
TV Networks See Decline in Viewers; Cable Gains
ABC News's High-Tech, Low-Visibility Coverage
Networks=92 Decision to Dedicate Only Three Hours to Each National Party
Convention is Wrong for America
What The Three Broadcast Networks Won't Tell You About Their
Convention Coverage: It=92s Greed
Group Plans to Challenge Law on Blackout Period for Ads
CABLE
Competitors Oppose Comcast=92s Dereg Plan
Montgomery Sets Rules for Cable Modem
NCTA Responds to NAB/Fritts' Letter
BROADBAND/INTERNET
Battle Brews Over Rules for Phones on Internet
Bells Are Catching Up in Battle for Broadband
South Korea Leads the Way
Lawmakers Call for More eRate Scrutiny
WIRELESS
CFA Says AT&T-Cingular Merger Threat to Wireline Competition
Cellphone Directory Gets Hoots, Hollers
TV & POLITICS
THE NETWORKS DON'T LIKE THIS REALITY SHOW
The networks that give us "Fear Factor," "Big Brother" and "The Bachelor"=20
didn't see good business in showing us the Democratic National Convention=20
on Tuesday night. It's true enough that, as a reality show, the convention=
=20
doesn't offer people eating worms or pledging their undying love to a hard=
=20
body they met a few hours ago. Is this a violation of public trust or a=20
strategic, if jaded, view of the lack of drama at today's political=20
conventions? No doubt ABC, NBC and CBS felt vindicated after Monday night's=
=20
coverage mustered fewer than 14 million total viewers combined, according=20
to figures from Nielsen Media Research, down 24% from first-night coverage=
=20
of the convention four years ago. Tuesday night, all they missed was an=20
electrifying speech by 42-year-old anointed rising star Barack Obama and=20
the unveiling of first lady hopeful Teresa Heinz Kerry -- a black man and a=
=20
middle-aged woman, neither of whom represents demographics the networks=20
particularly care about.
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Paul Brownfield]
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tv28jul28,1,4350...
story?coll=3Dla-news-a_section
(requires registration)
TV NETWORKS SEE DECLINE IN VIEWERS; CABLE GAINS
Who could have guessed that as commercial broadcasters decrease their=20
coverage of the Democratic National Convention that fewer people would be=20
watching the event on broadcast TV? But while viewing levels fell off=20
sharply for the networks, viewing on the cable news channels showed a big=20
increase, with about two million more viewers watching this year's=20
first-day coverage than did four years ago. PBS, the one broadcast network=
=20
that has continued to provide gavel-to-gavel coverage, also experienced a=20
sharp rise in viewers. PBS news executives pronounced their increased=20
ratings as proof of their competing thesis: that there is a substantial=20
audience engaged deeply enough in American politics seeking more complete=20
coverage of the conventions. PBS reported that it had an average of 2.5=20
million viewers for the three hours of opening night coverage, compared=20
with 1.9 million four years ago. That means that the convention coverage=20
brought about as many viewers to PBS as on a regular prime-time night of=20
broadcasting.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Neil Lewis & Bill Carter]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/politics/campaign/28media.html
(requires registration)
Also see
LATimes=20
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-ratings28jul28,1...
097.story?coll=3Dla-news-a_section
ABC NEW'S HIGH-TECH, LOW-VISIBILITY COVERAGE
ABC, which has no cable network, is offering 24/7 coverage of the=20
Democratic convention -- but only to those at the other end of a narrow=20
technological pipeline. The coverage is available only online (to AOL, ABC=
=20
News and RealNetworks subscribers), on digital television and on Sprint=20
cell phones. The broadcast network is providing just three hours of=20
coverage of the convention this week. "It's interesting," anchor Peter=20
Jennings said of the narrowcasting experiment. "I don't know who's watching=
=20
it or listening to it or reading it. I find myself talking as if it's an=20
international audience," since AOL users around the world can access it,=20
"taking less for granted about what we're doing here. There's a measure of=
=20
spontaneity you get with this that is very refreshing. You remember people=
=20
are looking at snippets of this. They're not glued to their computers or=20
their cell phones."
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Howard Kurtz]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19456-2004Jul27.html
(requires registration)
NETWORKS' DECISION TO DEDICATE ONLY THREE HOURS TO EACH NATIONAL PARTY=20
CONVENTION IS WRONG FOR AMERICA
What's wrong with commercial broadcasters' decision to show just three=20
hours of convention coverage? Meredith McGehee offers seven issues: 1) The=
=20
lack of coverage sends a clear message that not only are the conventions=20
unimportant but that the upcoming elections don't merit the nation=92s full=
=20
attention. 2) The failure to significantly cover the conventions is moving=
=20
us down the road to the =93ghetto-ization=94 of politics, with only a narrow=
=20
segment of the motivated public getting the information they need to be=20
informed, engaged citizens. 3) While the conventions are highly-scripted=20
events, so is every press conference, briefing, speech or announcement from=
=20
the White House, yet the news organizations routinely cover the President=92=
s=20
actions. Does our presidential election deserve any less? 4) It is not too=
=20
much to ask that, every four years, the media companies that are granted=20
free licenses to operate on the publicly-owned airwaves actually use those=
=20
airwaves to help educate the American public about the choices we as a=20
nation face in the upcoming elections? 5) The conventions provide voters=20
with useful information. How a party packages itself at a national=20
convention reveals much about its candidate and its priorities. 6) The=20
conventions four years ago sparked increased interest in news coverage of=20
the presidential campaign and heightened awareness of the candidates=92=20
policy positions. 7) There are big decisions at stake in this election =AD=
=20
war, terrorism, health, the economy. Broadcasters should let viewers watch=
=20
the presidential candidates address these important national issues and=20
make up their own minds.
[SOURCE: Alliance for better Campaigns, AUTHOR: Alliance President Meredith=
=20
McGehee]
http://www.ourairwaves.org/press/release.php?ReleaseID=3D59
See how broadcasters are performing this campaign season
http://www.ourairwaves.org/hall/
WHAT THE THREE BROADCAST NETWORKS WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT THEIR CONVENTION=20
COVERAGE: IT'S GREED
The three major broadcast TV networks are merely spinning lame excuses for=
=20
why they will not be covering the national political conventions for more=20
than a few hours this summer. It=92s all =93tightly scripted,=94 =93it=92s=
not=20
interesting," or there=92s =93no news,=94 they suggest. Yet TV broadcasting=
will=20
largely reap an unprecedented $1 billion or more from political ads sold=20
this election season. TV broadcasters are also stealthily lobbying the FCC=
=20
for a giant mega-billion dollar handout. Believe it or not, ABC, NBC, and=20
the NAB claim that they are serving the public interest by providing the US=
=20
public with news and information. Consequently, they want the US=20
government to award them a financial digital bonanza that a modern-day=20
Midas would envy. First, let=92s be clear. It=92s greed on the part of the=
Big=20
Three that is keeping convention coverage off the air. The Networks want=20
to run as much of their regular prime-time schedule as possible to harvest=
=20
profits from advertising. Meanwhile, profits at the networks are arcing=20
ever skyward. The networks and the National Association of Broadcasters are=
=20
lobbying the FCC to approve a new policy that would force cable operators=20
to carry new broadcast network channels (called =93multi-casting must=20
carry). Instead of the one channel delivered today, the networks could=20
deliver six or more interactive channels in its place. The networks have=20
the audacity to tell the FCC and Congress that because they serve the=20
=93public interest,=94 they should receive this handout. Yet, during a=20
critical time in US history, the three networks would rather not help=20
encourage a national discussion of issues affecting Americans; they simply=
=20
want to close their eyes to any obligation and just make lots of extra=
money.
[SOURCE: Center for Digital Democracy Press Release]
http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/netcoverage.html
GROUP PLANS TO CHALLENGE LAW ON BLACKOUT PERIOD FOR ADS
In the first major challenge to the new campaign finance law's restrictions=
=20
on political advertising around elections, Wisconsin Right to Life, a=20
Milwaukee group opposed to abortion rights plans to seek an injunction on=20
Wednesday that would let it run radio and television spots during a time=20
the law prohibits. The law restricts interest groups that accept=20
unrestricted donations called soft money from buying television or radio=20
commercials that mention or depict a candidate within 30 days of a primary,=
=20
or 60 days within a general election. In a motion expected to be filed=20
against the Federal Election Commission with the United States District=20
Court for the District of Columbia, lawyers for the anti-abortion group=20
argue that the ban violates the First Amendment rights of a grass-roots=20
organization seeking to influence policy, not politics.
Ironically, the target of the ads is Wisconsin senator Russell Feingold, a=
=20
major sponsor of the campaign finance law.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Michael Janofsky]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/politics/campaign/28suit.html
(requires registration)
CABLE
COMPETITORS OPPOSE COMCAST'S DEREG PLAN
In comments filed at the FCC July 23, Comcast is seeking the end of federal=
=20
program-access rules that require cable companies to sell their programming=
=20
to pay TV rivals at fair prices. The rules, which sunset in October 2007,=20
are restricted to satellite-delivered networks that are affiliated with=20
cable companies. They do not apply to terrestrially delivered cable=20
networks, such as Comcast SportsNet. DirecTV Inc. and Verizon=20
Communications are rejecting the proposal as premature and potentially=20
threatening to competition. =93If DirecTV=92s continuing ability to win=20
customers from cable is threatened by innovative packages or lower cable=20
prices, that is DirecTV=92s problem. If, however, it is threatened because=
=20
cable-affiliated programmers withhold regional sports programming from=20
their affiliates=92 competitors, that is a public-policy problem,=94 DirecTV=
=20
said in its FCC comments. In its comments, Verizon called on the FCC to=20
broaden, or ask Congress to broaden, the program-access rules to include=20
cable-affiliated terrestrial networks. =93Without access to much=20
terrestrially delivered programming -- especially =91must have=92 items,=
like=20
regional sports networks and news programming -- new entrants are at a=20
serious disadvantage when competing against incumbent cable companies,=94=20
Verizon said.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA439218?display=3DBreaking+News
(requires subscription)
MONTGOMERY SETS RULES FOR CABLE MODEM
The Montgomery County (MD) Council yesterday approved new customer service=
=20
standards for cable companies that provide Internet access, a measure=20
experts say is among the first of its kind in the nation. Under the new=20
law, cable companies must answer the phone within 30 seconds, complete=20
repairs within 36 hours, and refund customers for Internet service=20
interruptions. Officials at Comcast, the dominant cable Internet access=20
provider in the county, said the measure is discriminatory because it does=
=20
not affect DSL, the other type of high-speed Internet service, which comes=
=20
into homes through telephone lines. Consumer advocates say the measure is=20
necessary because of complaints against Comcast and Starpower, the county's=
=20
smaller cable provider.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Amit Paley]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19380-2004Jul27.html
(requires registration)
NCTA RESPONDS TO (NAB) FRITTS' LETTER
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association "looks forward" to=20
meeting with the National Association of Broadcasters about digital-TV=20
issues. But "NCTA does not regard dual must-carry of all broadcast stations=
=20
as a way to advance the digital transition or to jumpstart discussion which=
=20
NAB abandoned two years ago," NCTA spokesperson Brian Deitz said.=20
"Hopefully the NAB has more constructive ideas than asking cable systems to=
=20
carry every commercial broadcast station twice."
The NAB wants the FCC to require cable systems to carry all of a broadcast=
=20
station's digital channel. That would include the station's digital version=
=20
of its analog signal, plus any additional services. Cable operators argue=20
that doing so would congest their service, forcing out niche cable networks.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Joel Meyer]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA439030?display=3DBreaking+News
(requires subscription)
BROADBAND/INTERNET
BATTLE BREWS OVER RULES FOR PHONES ON INTERNET
Behind the scenes, a fierce battle is emerging among rival companies and=20
between federal and state regulators over the shape of new government=20
regulations and control of Internet-based phone service (VoIP), which has=20
the potential to be the most significant development in telecommunications=
=20
since the breakup of the AT&T monopoly 20 years ago. Congress and the FCC=20
have begun to draft changes in telecommunications regulation, but the=20
efforts are largely a dress rehearsal for next year. Competing interests=20
are lining up now for huge fights that will probably begin in earnest in=20
January. Competitors include federal vs state regulators, and outstanding=20
issues include universal service fees, access fees, emergency 911 and=20
surveillance compatibility.
See how the table is set at the URL below.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Stephen Labaton & Matt Richtel]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/technology/28voip.html
(requires registration)
BELLS ARE CATCHING UP IN BATTLE FOR BROADBAND
Verizon, SBC and BellSouth have all seen gains of late in their broadband=20
divisions. Although the companies continue to see a decline in local fixed=
=20
phone lines, the slide is being offset by growth in high-speed data lines.=
=20
Together, the three added a net 715,000 new broadband customers in the last=
=20
quarter, about as many as the top seven cable companies are expected to add=
=20
when they report their figures in the coming days. Running even with the=20
cable industry is a big improvement for the regional phone companies. The=20
cable industry has controlled more than two-thirds of the residential=20
high-speed data lines for several years. While the cable industry still has=
=20
the lead in the market over all, the Bells have battled back by slashing=20
prices, raising their connection speeds and expanding their coverage. They=
=20
have also started offering more diverse bundles of products to compete with=
=20
the video, voice and data services that cable companies sell, including=20
teaming up with satellite providers.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Ken Belson]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/business/28place.html
(requires registration)
SOUTH KOREA LEADS THE WAY
The United States considers itself the center of technological innovation,=
=20
yet South Korea has gone considerably further in making a mainstream=20
reality out of the futuristic promises of bygone dot-com days. Eight=20
megabits per second Internet connections are the norm in South Korea while=
=20
broadband subscribers in the US are lucky to enjoy 1 Megabit connections.=20
Many U.S. executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity,=
=20
noting correctly that South Korea's densely populated areas have made it=20
easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to=
=20
large numbers of people. But even with such geographic and demographic=20
differences, the United States can learn some valuable lessons from South=20
Korea's experience in jump-starting a broadband powerhouse. The country's=20
achievements are even more impressive considering its starting point in=20
technology. In 1995, fewer than 1 percent of South Korean residents used=20
the Internet, though a larger number subscribed to proprietary=20
Korean-language networks that were somewhat like the closed CompuServe and=
=20
America Online networks of the late 1980s. By 2004, more than 71 percent of=
=20
South Korean households subscribed to broadband Net services, according to=
=20
local estimates.
See much more at the URL below.
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: John Borland and Michael Kanellos]
http://news.com.com/South+Korea+leads+the+way/2009-1034_3-5261393.html?tag=
=3Dnl
LAWMAKERS CALL FOR MORE ERATE SCRUTINY
After hearing testimony about how the vigilance of San Francisco=20
Superintendent Arlene Ackerman foiled an E-rate fraud scam, Rep. Joe Barton=
=20
(R-TX) called for federal officials to beef up their review of eRate=20
applications. The FCC is expected to adopt new rules in August that will=20
address some of the problems revealed in the day-long hearing, testified=20
William F. Maher Jr., chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. Mr.=20
Maher, who recently resigned from the FCC and will leave at the end of=20
August, discussed several proposed rule changes that would have prevented=20
the San Francisco scheme from happening. Some of the recommendations=20
include expanding the document-retention requirements for applicants to=20
five years, improving certification procedures, and increasing the=20
Universal Service Administrative Company's scrutiny of applications.
[SOURCE: eSchool News, AUTHOR: Cara Branigan]
(http://www.consumersunion.org/news/news.htm)
WIRELESS
CFA SAYS AT&T-CINGULAR MERGER THREAT TO WIRELINE COMPETITION
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) says the proposed Cingular--AT&T=20
Wireless merger will be bad for local phone competition and should be=20
rejected by the Department of Justice. The group says that since SBC and=20
BellSouth own Cingular the merger could prove =93another anti-competitive=20
blow to consumers,=94 removing =93the largest unaffiliated competitor from=
the=20
wireless market.=94 CFA stresses the potential impact of the merger on=20
wireline-wireless competition. =93SBC and Bell South as the dominant=
wireless=20
and landline providers will have little incentive to migrate customers off=
=20
of landline service.=94 CFA also argues that the merger increases the=20
incentives for higher wireless prices. CFA also directly called on the=20
Department of Justice to order divestiture of spectrum in most markets if=20
the merger is approved. =93Separately Cingular and AT&T Wireless have more=
=20
spectrum today than many of the other wireless license holders,=94 CFA said.=
=20
=93Combined they will have a dominant holding of spectrum in many markets.=
=94
[SOURCE: Communications Daily, AUTHOR: Howard Buskirk]
(Not available online)
CELLPHONE DIRECTOR GETS HOOTS, HOLLERS
The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, the trade group=20
that represents wireless carriers, is compiling a directory of cell phone=20
numbers so people can call information and get someone else's cell phone=20
number. Cellphone customers must give permission, or opt in, to be added=20
and there won't be a directory in print or online. The service is drawing=20
criticism from consumer advocates who say it encroaches on a rare bastion=20
of privacy. "These devices are considered much more personal than landline=
=20
(phones)," says Chris Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information=20
Center. "People tend to carry them everywhere and answer them when they=20
ring." What's more, cellphone subscribers pay for incoming calls, even=20
unwanted ones. Congress is considering legislation that would require=20
carriers to get existing customers' approval before adding their numbers to=
=20
a directory. New subscribers could opt out, or decline to participate, when=
=20
they sign up for service. The bill also would prohibit fees for people who=
=20
want to keep their numbers unlisted. Landline customers pay $2 to $3 a=20
month for an unlisted number. A hearing on the bill is expected this fall.
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR:Paul Davidson]
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040728/6402728s.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. 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------