To view Benton's Headlines feed in your RSS Aggregator, paste
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=taxonomy/term/6/all/feed into your reader.
For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org
TELECOM LEGISLATION
Barton: Bill Minus Cable Provisions
New Jersey Franchising Debate On Hold During Budget Session
INTERNET/BROADBAND
Whose Internet is it, anyway?
Avoiding half measures on Net Neutrality
Broadband giants say Net neutrality fears misguided
Net Neutrality To Be the FCC's Responsibility? Or Nobody's Responsibility?
Most Movie Firms Avoid 'Network Neutrality' Fight
Washington Post: Internet for Us, Not for You
BROADCASTING
TV Execs Call for Deregulation
New TV Permits Cost $23 Million
Two Stations Want To Pull Analog Plug
TV and Top Marketers Discuss the State of the Medium
QUICKLY -- Public Knowledge Finds Verizon Programming Complaint
'Curious'; SF Mayor & The Google Boys; DirecTV Sues Lifetime; Lucent,
Alcatel Are Far Along In Merger Talks; Jamming cellphones in
theaters; Senate defies Bush on ed budget; Spitzer sues Gratis for
privacy breach; House Commerce Committee to Approve Bipartisan ID
Theft Bill; Famed Encyclopedia Britannica Defends Its Turf
TELECOM LEGISLATION
BARTON: BILL MINUS CABLE PROVISIONS
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) is ready to
advance a telecommunications bill stripped of provisions that have
raised strong objections from the cable industry. The bill -- which
would feature national video franchises for phone companies -- might
be released in draft form today, followed by a hearing next week in
the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Chairman Barton's new schedule would call for a subcommittee vote in
two weeks. The bill is not expected to include buildout requirements
-- an omission that would allow phone companies to target affluent
cable communities. The bill is also expected to allow the Federal
Communications Commission to enforce network-neutrality principles it
adopted last August. Rep Barton -- feeling press pressure from cable
and conservative think tanks -- dropped two provisions he had
accepted in principle two weeks ago in negotiations with the
committee's top Democrats, Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Edward
Markey (D-MA). One provision would deny a national franchise for a
cable incumbent until a phone provider had 15% of the local market,
and another would bar cable operators from slashing rates only in
those sections of a community where the phone company had initiated
service. Industry and House aides said Barton's decision to drop
those two provisions while refusing to include buildout requirements
has cost him the support of Reps Dingell and Markey, setting up a
partisan contest when the committee meets to vote.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6318652.html?display=Breaking+News
See related commentary --
* Local Video Franchise: Asset or Liability?
http://www.birds-eye.net/article_archive/local_video_franchise_asset_or_...
NEW JERSEY FRANCHISING DEBATE ON HOLD DURING BUDGET SESSION
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Michael Martinez]
After a splash of activity last week, the legislative debate on cable
franchising in New Jersey is heading for the backburner again. A
Senate panel approved a bill to establish statewide franchising rules
on March 13, but further action will not come until May, when the
legislature reconvenes after its April budget break. Only the budget
committees will meet during the next month. New Jersey has become a
key battleground in the fight between cable and telephone companies
over the ability of local governments to award video franchises.
Verizon Communications, the dominant telephone provider in the Garden
State, is pushing a bill that would allow the company to bypass local
rules and obtain a statewide franchise to enter the video market. A
bill to streamline the franchising process appeared to be on the fast
track for passage last fall, but the measure died at the end of the
legislature's "lame duck" session in January. The Senate Economic
Growth Committee approved a new proposal, S. 192, on a 4-0 vote last
week. The latest version of the bill would empower the state Board of
Public Utilities with the exclusive authority to regulate video
franchises. The measure would require entrants to provide service to
the state's most densely populated areas, and it would hike
franchising fees for all video services from 2 percent to 4 percent.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-BCOZ1143143879465.html
INTERNET/BROADBAND
WHOSE INTERNET IS IT, ANYWAY?
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] The hot debate over "Net neutrality" has spilled beyond
Internet chat rooms and into Congress. The concept that those who own
the "pipes" can't dictate what goes through them has made the
Internet an engine for individual and economic growth. An Internet
with gatekeepers threatens the Net's creative soul. "Net neutrality"
simply means that data - a phone call, an e-mail, a video - can
travel freely over the Internet without the interference of those who
own parts of the pipeline. Those transmitting it shouldn't
discriminate as long as the content is legal and doesn't damage the
system. The phone companies argue that competition between carriers
will prevent abuses. If customers feel unfairly treated by one
provider, they can switch to another. But no such competition exists.
A handful of cable TV and phone companies control the lion's share of
US broadband Internet access. Many consumers have no choice among
broadband providers. The acquisition of Bell South by AT&T, now under
way, shows that competition is shrinking, not expanding. If Congress
fails to act, the only hope may be that neutrality advocates can open
up a "third pipe" to homes, even if only in some key markets. That
might create just enough competition to keep the cable-phone duopoly
honest. That third pipe might be a municipal wireless (WiFi) network,
another wireless system, or some future technology. Pipeline owners
shouldn't choose winners and losers in the online marketplace.
Tollbooths and gates are the last thing the Net needs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0324/p08s02-comv.html
AVOIDING HALF MEASURES ON NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Ron Sege, Tropos]
[Ciommentary] In his recent op-ed, Randolph J. May of the Progress &
Freedom Foundation argued that Congress could help achieve "Net
neutrality" by adopting the Digital Age Communications Act. Under
that bill, network operators would be prohibited from engaging in
unfair competitive practices, like blocking certain Internet content,
that present a threat of abuse of significant market power. I agree
that Net neutrality is an important principle. But rather than
focusing solely on a new complex and unwieldy regulatory structure to
assess whether companies are obeying a particular set of rules,
Congress should now establish measures that aggressively encourage
additional so-called facilities-based competition in the delivery of
broadband services. In an environment in which business models,
technologies and citizen requirements are changing faster than any
one service provider can embrace, our legislative environment should
encourage rapid deployment of a full complement of approaches to
keeping our citizens well connected, well served and safe. Rather
than focusing solely on specific legislative "fixes" to ensure
neutrality of an individual broadband "pipe," let's rethink our
current telecom policies and choose to encourage a wide range of
competitors that build a wide choice of broadband pipes to the
consumer. As it considers a fundamental rewrite of our
telecommunications laws, Congress can best advance the interests of
consumers by aggressively encouraging a wide range of competitors and
a true balance between old line carriers and new technologies,
between licensed and unlicensed spectrum. With vigorous competition,
we'll achieve Net neutrality for everyone.
http://news.com.com/2010-1028-6053415.html
BROADBAND GIANTS SAY NET NEUTRALITY FEARS MISGUIDED
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Marguerite Reardon]
Executives from AT&T and Verizon have tried to set the record
straight on Net neutrality by explaining the kinds of service their
companies would like to offer content providers. They that their
companies have no intention of degrading or blocking other companies'
traffic that rides over the public Internet. Instead AT&T and Verizon
would simply like to offer content companies, such as Google and
Movielink, virtual pipes directly to consumers over their broadband
connections that would allow these content companies to make sure
users at home have a good experience accessing their content.
http://news.com.com/Broadband+giants+say+Net+neutrality+fears+misguided/...
NET NEUTRALITY TO BE FCC'S RESPONSIBILITY? OR NOBODY'S RESPONSIBILITY?
[SOURCE: MediaGeek]
[Commentary] At a telecom industry conference on Tuesday, FCC
Chairman Kevin Martin said that he thinks the Commission already has
the authority to address complaints regarding network neutrality.
However Chairman Martin also expressed support for "tiering"
broadband packages, allowing providers to charge more for richer
content. Yet it doesn't seem clear to me whether Martin is just
supporting the idea that a consumer would pay more to get a 10
megabit connection than for a 2 megabit connection, or if he actually
supports the ability of AT&T to charge content providers in order to
reach households via their Internet connections. He might even
support the ability for an ISP to charge consumers a higher price to
receive Internet content from providers that haven't struck a deal
with that ISP. It's simply not clear. There's a crucial difference
between these interpretations of "tiering" and because this word is
being thrown around so much it's often difficult to know who's
supporting what. For his part, Martin probably wouldn't mind having
Congress give him vague guidelines, so that he isn't responsible for
drawing the boundaries and can pass the buck when AT&T starts
intruding in a year or two when the heat's off. Then it'll all
probably end up in court where Congress and the Commission can
absolve themselves of responsibility altogether.
http://www.mediageek.net/?p=1370
* Battle over Internet fees unsettled
[SOURCE: MarketWatch, AUTHOR: Jeffry Bartash]
Big phone companies appear to have blunted efforts in Congress to
enshrine controversial "Net neutrality" principles into law, at least
for now, but the issue is unlikely to go away.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BBE056ECE%2D06A8...
MOST MOVIE FIRMS AVOID 'NETWORK NEUTRALITY' FIGHT
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
Many Internet watchers predict that decisions about "network
neutrality" will directly impact the future of video distribution.
But Hollywood and independent film studios are largely absent from
the now-simmering debate. Warner Brothers has good reason for its
silence: It is owned by Time Warner, which is also the nation's
second-largest cable operator. Disney has said it does not favor
legislation requiring net neutrality. Studios have an increasing
stake in the future of the cable industry: Paramount, which is owned
by Viacom and its MTV Networks; Universal, which is owned by NBC
Universal and its channels; and News Corp.'s Fox studio and channels.
News Corp. also has a controlling stake in the DirecTV satellite
company. Sony Pictures is an exception. Its corporate sibling, Sony
Electronics, last week endorsed network neutrality, as has the
broader electronics industry and many computer industry players.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-XHXQ1143143426346.html
WASHINGTON POST: INTERNET FOR US, NOT FOR YOU
[SOURCE: Center for Democratic Media, AUTHOR: Jeff Chester]
[Commentary] In dismissing the call for an open and
non-discriminatory broadband Internet as merely the concerns of those
interested in a "democratic utopia," the Washington Post sided with
its big media phone and cable brethren. The Post did disclose, in an
aside, that since it "owns both cable and Web sites" it had
"commercial interests on both sides of this issue." But the Post
wasn't really being honest with its readers. For example, the Post
should have disclosed its parent company is part of the anti-network
neutrality movement. The Post Co.'s cable T.V. division president
sits on the board of the National Cable & Telecommunications
Association; the NCTA is leading the charge against the passage of
any network neutrality safeguard. Since it owns those cable systems
and their broadband connections, the Post. can make sure its content
receives preferential treatment in those markets. Moreover, the
Post-Newsweek string of TV stations have received (as a result of
lobbying Congress), a free set of digital airwaves. The Post will be
able to use its digital TV beachfront property to receive
preferential broadband treatment in such key markets as Detroit,
Houston, Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, and San Antonio. It will use
this broadband power to help give its already successful web
properties, such as Washington Post Interactive and Slate, the needed
boost that others won't likely have without network neutrality
rules. (In its most recent [March 7, 2006] annual 10 k report to the
SEC, the Post Co. called such Net safeguards a "regulatory burden").
The Post should also have acknowledged that it is politically
supporting the rollback of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership
safeguard at the FCC. In a world without media ownership limits and
protections for network neutrality, companies such as the Post know
they will come out at the top of the media food chain.
http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=8
BROADCASTING
TV EXECS CALL FOR DEREGULATION
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Allison Romano]
No, Virginia, the media ownership debate hasn't gone away; it is just
heating up. As local broadcasters strive to increase revenues and
improve margins, top executives from several major station groups
renewed their calls Thursday for deregulation and the revamping of
the TV-ownership rules. Under the current guidelines, a company can
own stations reaching no more than 39% of the country. Calling the
formula "ludicrous," NBC Universal Television Stations President Jay
Ireland said, "We are now at 31% [of the country]. New York City is
6%, and that is if every viewer watched WNBC every day. Come on. We
know what our ratings are, and we are a sliver. The broadcast
industry is getting left in the dust." Former NBC executive Brandon
Burgess, now CEO of Ion Media Networks (formerly Paxson
Communications), says regulation is stymieing broadcaster
innovations. "If some of the artificial and nonsensical limitations
are eliminated, then our industry will be less punished," Burgess
said. "This is a mature industry, and mature industries consolidate,"
said Nexstar Broadcasting CEO Perry Sook. "Hence the need for deregulation."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6318567.html?display=Breaking...
NEW TV PERMITS COST $23 MILLION
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The FCC has closed the bidding on construction permits for 10 new
full-power TV stations. The winners are among the first generation of
broadcasters who are having to pay for their spectrum use now that
the government is trying to better monetize the process through
auctions. Incumbent analog broadcasters did not have to pay for their
digital channels, though they must return their analog spectrum by
Feb. 17, 2009, according to Congress.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6318519?display=Breaking+News
TWO STATIONS WANT TO PULL ANALOG PLUG
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton ]
The FCC's Media Bureau has received two more requests from stations
that want to "flash-cut" to digital-only broadcasts, pulling the plug
on their analog channels and going all-digital before the 2009
deadline. The stations, both Christian Television stations, are WGNM
(ch, 64) Macon (GA) and WFGC (ch. 61) Palm Beach (FL). The FCC is
considering each request on a case-by-case basis. It is encouraging
broadcasters on channels 60-69 to return their analog spectrum early
since that portion of the spectrum band is being reallocated to
advanced wireless services as well as to first responders.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6318479?display=Breaking+News
TV AND TOP MARKETERS DISCUSS STATE OF MEDIUM
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Julie Bosman]
The future of television advertising was the main topic of discussion
at a conference of the Association of National Advertisers on
Wednesday, meant as a prelude to the upfront market in May. That is
when television networks introduce new programming and companies
reconsider the division of their advertising dollars among print,
television, Internet and other media. Among themselves, advertising
executives often declare the 30-second spot dead. But to hear
television executives tell it, not only does television remain a
potent medium, but those little ads are still going strong. The main
concern about TV advertising, said Josh Bernoff, the vice president
for devices, media and marketing at Forrester Research, is the
digital video recorder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/24/business/media/24adco.html
(requires registration)
QUICKLY
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE FINDS VERIZON PROGRAMMING COMPLAINTS 'CURIOUS'
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge press release]
Verizon has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications
Commission to gain access to programming provided by Cablevision and
its Rainbow Media Holdings subsidiary. Gigi B. Sohn, president and
co-founder of Public Knowledge, said, "Verizon certainly has the
right to complain about access to Rainbow's programming. But it is
extremely curious that Verizon, by opposing an enforceable net
neutrality law, would not grant the same rights to others to gain
access to its broadband system. Verizon appears to favor government
rules to enforce competition to benefit Verizon, but not when others
could benefit. Verizon's complaint demonstrates that a properly
tailored government rule (whether program access or net neutrality)
can promote competition and restrain the abuse of market power."
http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/releases/pressrelease.2006-03-2...
NEWSOM & THE GOOGLE BOYS
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Verne Kopytoff]
E-mails obtained by The Chronicle show the close relationship between
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and executives at Google, which is
bidding for a contract to provide free wireless Internet access for the city.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/24/NEWSOM.TMP
DIRECTV SUES LIFETIME
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Moss]
DirecTV is suing Lifetime Television, charging that the programmer
violated their carriage deal and reneged on its offer to pay Dish
Network customers $200 to switch to DirecTV during the period when
EchoStar Communications Corp. dropped the women's network in a
much-publicized dispute. DirecTV, the largest satellite provider,
filed suit late Wednesday charging Lifetime Entertainment Services
with breach of contract, asking for the right to terminate its
carriage deal with the programmer. The action, which also seeks
compensatory damages, was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6318659.html?display=Breaking+News
LUCENT, ALCATEL ARE FAR ALONG IN MERGER TALKS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Dennis K. Berman at
dennis.berman( at )wsj.com, Sara Silver and Almar Latour ]
Lucent and France's Alcatel said they were in advanced talks on a
merger that would create a trans-Atlantic equipment supplier with a
market value of $33 billion in the rapidly consolidating
telecommunications industry. A linkup between the two, anticipated
since a deal attempt failed five years ago, could help both realize
substantial cost savings and likely would kick off a new round of
consolidation among the already-pressured companies that supply
equipment to phone companies. Consolidation pressure has been growing
in the equipment business amid a wave of telecom deals and the
emergence of more-efficient technologies. That has limited the amount
of money that big phone companies have to spend on equipment. The
result has been too many equipment makers chasing a limited amount of business.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114316910402707136.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)
* Lucent, Alcatel in Merger Talks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR200603...
THEATERS IN A CELLPHONE JAM
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Gloria Goodale]
This past week the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO)
pondered blocking cellphone signals as a way to improve the cinema
experience. The idea was a hot topic this past week when theater
owners from coast to coast met to preview the summer lineups from
movie studios and trade tips on combating falling movie theater
attendance. The 6,000-strong membership of NATO voted to authorize
its board to look into changing federal laws that currently prevent
them from using cellphone-jamming equipment in theaters. Not
surprisingly, the cellular industry's national trade group, CTIA -
The Wireless Association, is against the idea. "We're vehemently
opposed for the simple reason that it's no one's right or prerogative
to deny emergency communications to go through," says John Walls,
CTIA vice president of public affairs. "That's why jamming is
illegal. These are the public airwaves - they are for everyone, and
everyone has a right to use them." Companies that manufacture jamming
equipment are also opposed, on similar grounds. "Jamming equipment
should only be used by the government, such as the police and the
bomb squads, not the general public," says Howard Melamed of
CellAntenna, one such company. "Jamming is a weapon that should only
be used against illegal activities."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0324/p11s01-almo.html
SENATE DEFIES BUSH ON ED BUDGET
[SOURCE: eSchool News, AUTHOR: Corey Murray]
As Congress begins action on a federal budget for 2007, advocates of
educational technology were heartened by a bill approved by the
Senate last week that would fund education at $1.5 billion more than
President Bush has proposed. Though it's still unclear how
educational technology would fare under the Senate version, the
measure suggests Congress is prepared at least partially to defy the
administration's budget request.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=6206
SPITZER SUES WEB MARKETER GRATIS FOR PRIVACY BREACH
[SOURCE: Reuters]
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on Thursday filed suit
against online marketer Gratis Internet, accusing the company of
selling personal consumer data from millions of customers despite a
strict confidentiality pledge. "This is believed to be the largest
deliberate breach of a privacy policy ever discovered by U.S. law
enforcement," Spitzer's office said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID...
HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE TO APPROVE BIPARTISAN ID THEFT BILL
[SOURCE: House Commerce Committee press release, AUTHOR: Chairman Joe Barton]
House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders have reached bipartisan
agreement on sweeping legislation to tackle the fastest growing
criminal enterprise in the United States - identity theft - and plan
to formally approve the bill at a Wednesday, March 29 markup. The
committee released the text of a "manager's amendment," making a
number of changes to the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA)
that the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
approved in November (H.R. 4127).
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/03232006_1822.htm
IN A WAR OF WORDS, FAMED ENCYCLOPEDIA DEFENDS ITS TURF
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Sarah Ellison sarah.ellison( at )wsj.com]
The venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica is launching an unusual public
war to defend itself against a scientific article that argued it's
scarcely better than a free-for-all Web upstart. On Dec. 15, the
scientific journal Nature ran a two-page "special report" titled
"Internet encyclopedias go head to head." It compared the accuracy of
science entries for the online encyclopedia Wikipedia and the online
version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Founded in 1768 in Edinburgh,
Scotland, Britannica is painstakingly compiled by a collection of
scholars and other experts around the world. Wikipedia came to life
in California five years ago under a "user-generated" model: That is,
anyone who wants to can contribute, or change, an entry. The scrape
comes as Encyclopaedia Britannica, once a household staple, has
struggled to maintain its relevance in a world of free search engines
and online research tools. The company, which stopped selling
encyclopedias door to door in 1996 in the U.S. and Canada, is part of
Luxembourg-based Encyclopaedia Britannica Holding SA. Today, only a
third of its profits come from its print encyclopedias. The rest is
made up in online subscriptions and other ventures.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114317139889807191.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)
--------------------------------------------------------------
...and we're outta here. Have a great weekend. Thanks for reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------