The House hearing titled The Effect of Television Violence on Children:
What Policymakers Need to Know
(http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/09132004hearing1355/hearing...)
will be webcasted this morning beginning at 9:30 (Central). For this and
other upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm
TELEVISION
Television and Elections
Television Spectrum for First Responders?
Never Say Never
Candidates, Stand Up for Talking Dirty
TELECOM
Free for All
A Stodgy Style, but BellSouth Starts to Loosen Its Top Button
Streamlining the Review Process for Communications Towers
INTERNET
Ops Again Face Forced Access
U.S. Judge Rejects Law to Block Child Porn on Web
TELEVISION
TELEVISION AND ELECTION
In a letter to the major television broadcast networks, the Public
Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition [including the Benton Foundation] urged
broadcasters to air the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates live
this fall. A Media Tenor/Media Channel study of the big 3 networks' nightly
news in the first 6 months of the year found that less than 5% of campaign
coverage was devoted to candidates' positions on the issues. "The bulk of
the coverage focused instead on horse race politics, candidate sparring and
campaign strategy, depriving Americans of meaningful information on
important election-year issues," the coalition said. It also wrote that it
would encourage local affiliates to invoke their right to reject network
programming -- especially entertainment and sports programming -- in favor
of the debates.
In a letter to FCC Commissioner Copps, the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association said more consumers rely on cable for
campaign coverage than on broadcast networks. Last month, Commissioner
Copps wrote a New York Times op-ed criticizing the lack of network coverage
of the conventions, saying cable networks don't provide local perspectives
on the convention. "This is far from the case," NCTA President Sachs wrote,
citing an April, 2004 study by the Radio and Television News Directors
Foundation that reported that cable's local and regional news channels have
been the places viewers turn to during the campaign season, on election
night and in the months in between. Mr. Sachs said it's "ironic" that
broadcasters would push for must-carry for their digital signals on cable
when "they have largely abdicated their public interest obligations with
respect to coverage of national and local political elections on their
primary video channel."
[SOURCE: Communications Daily]
(Not available online)
See also:
Nets Pushed to Roadblock Debates
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA452198?display=Breaking+News
(requires subscription)
See Also:
OLD NEWS, LONG OVERDO
Kurtz writes, If journalists devoted the same investigative energy to the
candidates' efforts to bolster Medicare and Social Security or deal with
the mess in Iraq -- as opposed to precisely what happened on the Bay Hap
River in 1969 -- perhaps more people might find campaign coverage
compelling. "I don't think the media feel badly anymore covering
30-year-old wars or personal scandals," says Larry Sabato, a University of
Virginia political scientist and press critic. "I don't think they feel
particularly badly about publishing gossip and unproven allegations."
Although there's an argument that what the candidates did during Vietnam
"is revealing of Bush's character and Kerry's character, it's not nearly as
important as what they've done in their public lives in the last 20 years."
"Here the campaign is dealing with terrorism and war, but we're still
capable of losing ourself in matters 35 years old that belong on
'Jeopardy!' or 'Trivial Pursuit,' " says Frank Sesno, a George Mason
University professor and former CNN anchor. While he blames Kerry in part
for putting Vietnam at the center of his campaign, Sesno sees an "almost
ridiculous contrast" between the country's problems and the media's
obsession with old controversies.
See more about how the media are serving democracy at the URL below.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Howard Kurtz]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16835-2004Sep12.html
(requires registration)
TELEVISION SPECTRUM FOR FIRST RESPONDERS?
The power of the broadcast industry lobby has been respected for years, but
it may be facing something even more powerful: terrorism. In the wake of
the September 11, 2001 attacks, fire and rescue squads from multiple
jurisdictions could not communicate because their equipment was tuned to
different radio bands. Because useless radios cost lives at the World Trade
Center, the 9/11 Commission urged Congress to assign first responders a big
block of spectrum to promote interoperable communications at any future
catastrophe. Legislation now in Congress would take back spectrum from
about 40 TV stations before January 1, 2007 so that first responders could
start using it. That's years earlier than required under current law and
the chief reason why some TV station owners have resisted. "I am not
speaking against the broadcasters. I am shouting against broadcasters,"
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), sponsor of the House bill, told the Senate
Commerce Committee. "The lives of not just of the American people, but the
lives of our emergency-response personnel are just too valuable to allow
the broadcast industry to pooh-pooh a fix, and that's what they have been
doing for the last 15 years." Seldom have broadcasters felt outgunned on a
key issue facing them in Congress. But spectrum-reclamation legislation,
fueled by the national security threats posed by terrorism, clearly has
some worried.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA452335?display=Policy
(requires subscription)
NEVER SAY NEVER
What's the final frontier for cable and satellite companies? A segment of
the market called "Nevers": people who can afford to pay for TV, but choose
not to -- or even worse -- don't watch TV at all. Twenty million US
households don't watch or pay for TV. Of the 20 million households that
don't subscribe to a pay-TV service today about 6 million families can't
afford the $40 monthly bill for basic service. The remaining 14 million
represent an enticing target for cable and satellite companies, the
"Nevers." Of these, roughly 2 million families don't own a TV. And then
there are the outlaws: an estimated 11 million pirates who steal cable and
satellite, a federal crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to 6 months
in prison. Most Nevers are a marketer's dream. In a recent survey of 385
TV-free families, Eastern Washington University professor Barbara Brock
found that more than two-thirds of them are headed by adults between 31 and
50 years old with two or more kids. More than half the parents had college
degrees and earned a combined annual income greater than $60,000.
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Bill McConnell ]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA452475?display=Top+of+the+Week
(requires subscription)
CANDIDATES, STAND UP FOR TALKING DIRTY
[Commentary] We need a president who realizes that there's no government
business in show business, Penn writes, looking for a "free speech"
candidate for President. He rails against campaign finance reform, efforts
to restrict 527s and the FCC's recent efforts to curb indecent programming.
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR:Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller)]
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-jillette13sep13,1...
(requires registration)
TELECOM
FREE FOR ALL
A look at growing competition between phone and cable companies. The two
industries are raiding each other's turf at such a dizzying pace that the
lines between them are blurring like never before. And it is becoming
almost impossible for communications companies to stay competitive without
branching into a whole new business. The result could mean more choice and
lower prices for consumers... it could also mean consolidation, especially
in the crowded phone market. Over the next 18 months or so, most cable
companies and regional Bells will be ready to offer a bundle of services
including TV, phone and Internet access. Customers will have to sort
through all sorts of new pricing plans, introductory offers and competing
claims. And they'll have to decide if they want to trust a company that's
just getting into the telecom or entertainment business.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Almar Latour at almar.latour( at )wsj.com]
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109466839346512506,00.html?mod=todays...
(requires subscription)
A STODGY STYLE, BUT BELLSOUTH STARTS TO LOOSEN ITS TOP BUTTON
With the phone business becoming more competitive and chaotic, BellSouth -
the only Baby Bell that has not acquired or been acquired by another Bell
company since the breakup of AT&T in 1984 - is slowly shedding its
conservative approach. With growth in the Southeast slowing, BellSouth is
looking at at buying one or more competitors in the contest against cable.
In February, Cingular, the cellphone company owned by BellSouth and SBC
Communications, bought AT&T Wireless for $41 billion, to form the nation's
largest cellphone company. BellSouth may also take another look at AT&T,
which approached BellSouth last year in the hope of merging. Acquiring
AT&T, the largest long-distance company, would give BellSouth a big
presence in the corporate phone services market, and a national footprint
it now lacks. The company has also invested $40 billion over the last
decade to upgrade its networks, allowing it to nearly double its broadband
subscribers in the last two years and begin testing an Internet-based phone
service.
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Ken Belson]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/business/13bellsouth.html
(requires registration)
STREAMLINING THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
The FCC announced that it has adopted measures to streamline and tailor the
review process for communications towers and other Commission-licensed
facilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. The Commission's
action adopts the provisions of a Nationwide Programmatic Agreement that,
if approved also by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, would be
signed by the three agencies. The Commission's streamlined process will
provide certainty and ease burdens on everyone involved in the review
process while continuing to protect historic properties, including those
properties to which federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian
Organizations attach religious or cultural significance.
[SOURCE: FCC]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252063A1.doc
INTERNET
OPS AGAIN FACE FORCED ACCESS
If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case known as Brand X Internet
Services v. Federal Communications Commission, it would be upholding a U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling that cable-modem service is
partly a telecommunications service subject to common carrier regulation.
The FCC has ruled that cable-modem service is an information service.
Telecommunications services are heavily regulated, but information services
face a light regulatory touch. FCC Chairman Powell has opted for the
information-service category for cable modems in an effort to use
deregulation to promote broadband investment and innovation. If subject to
telecommunications regulation, cable operators may have to open their lines
to competing Internet-service providers under regulations that have applied
to the Baby Bells for decades. Even if the courts rule against it, the FCC
could use its statutory forbearance authority to ensure that cable-modem
service remains deregulated. The agency can refrain from regulation after
determining that three statutory factors have been met. Among other things,
it would have to demonstrate regulation was unnecessary because market
forces were adequately protecting consumers from paying unjust and
unreasonable rates. In asking the Supreme Court to review the Brand X case,
the Justice Department said forbearance was not a realistic escape route
for the FCC to take. It noted the FCC had never experimented with
forbearance in connection with cable modem service.
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA452452?display=Top+Stories
(requires subscription)
US JUDGE REJECTS LAW TO BLOCK CHILD PORN ON WEB
Judge Jan Dubois of the U.S. court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ruled Friday that a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to force Internet
service providers to block access to child pornography sites is
unconstitutional because technology used to block the sites would also
prevent users from accessing sites that had nothing to do with child
pornography. The decision could set a national precedent on Internet
regulation, said John Morris, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy
and Technology, a Washington-based advocacy group that brought the suit
against Pennsylvania Attorney General Jerry Pappert. Morris said the
attorney general's office secretly issued orders during 2002 and 2003 that
told Internet providers to block access to Web server computers that hosted
about 400 child porn sites. In the course of implementing the Internet
Child Pornography Act, passed in 2002, the providers were forced to deny
access to over 1 million other sites that were legitimate, he said.
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jon Hurdle]
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=6208727
See also:
Pennsylvania Internet Law Struck Down as Unconstitutional
http://www.cdt.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------