April showers, of course, bring May flowers. But the first full month of Spring also witnessed the flowering of a number of key telecommunications debates. Just add water and -- presto -- there's some controversy.
I. DTV Transition
Many Americans now seem aware that in less than a year analog television broadcasts will cease and they will have to do something -- perhaps they are not sure what -- in order to keep viewing free, over-the-air local TV stations. Viewers need to either 1) purchase a digital-to-analog converter box to keep old, antenna-dependent TV sets working, 2) buy a digital television, or 3) subscribe to a pay-TV service. But even consumers paying close attention to the details of the DTV transition may be receiving mixed signals.
First, some stations -- notably, low-power TV stations and, after a Senate committee vote, perhaps stations along the Mexican border as well -- may still be broadcasting analog signals after February 18, 2009. Second, some converter boxes may not be working well and consumers are having problems using the government-issued coupons meant to make the boxes more affordable. Consumers may shriek, "Honey, the converter box shrunk the screen" after hooking up converters boxes, too.
Although receiving crystal clear TV images for free may seem like the best deal for consumers, broadcasters aren't doing a great job of marketing the option. And even if consumers try this option, new research suggests they may have trouble receiving signals relying on antennas.
Finally, cable operators have been running public service announcements saying to relax if you are a subscriber -- cable will take care of you through the transition. But some consumers are feeling taken advantage of -- finding they will have to pay additional one-time and ongoing fees to receive local TV signals. There's also some question about whether or not rural cable operators will provide digital and/or analog signals after the transition.
The Federal Communications Commission is considering modifying DTV education rules and Congress continues to keep an eye on the FCC and National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
II. Television Content
Actor Tim Robbins surprised many people with a controversial keynote address to open the annual meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters in Las Vegas. Robbins told broadcasters they can either use their power to "lift us up" into a "more enlightened age" or they can "hide behind that old adage: I'm just a businessman. I provide what the audience wants." He said the "pornographic obsession with celebrity culture," and divisive coverage of racial and social issues should be left behind, as should focus groups and fears about job security "Enough is enough," he said. "Now is the time to move away from our lesser selves. Now is the time to stop making money on the misfortunes of others and the prurient and salacious desires" of the public.
Robbins made his speech as lawyers throughout DC were drafting comments on the FCC's proposed new rules to encourage localism in broadcasting. Some broadcasters walked out on Robbins' Las Vegas speech, offended that anyone would suggest they aren't serving the public well. In DC, broadcasters told the FCC that new localism proposals are unnecessary and burdensome. The NAB said, "[I]nstead of achieving the Commission's stated goal of promoting closer contact between broadcasters and their communities, the proposed rule changes will, in many cases, produce the opposite effect, resulting in a broadcasting industry less able to serve the public interest. Especially in light of broadcasters' and other outlets' increasing service to local markets made possible by technological developments, NAB urges the FCC not to return to a regulatory regime from the analog era that would harm rather than help promote our common goal of providing service to our local communities." Public interest groups support the FCC proposals.
III. Media Ownership
There's no better poster boy for the anti-media ownership consolidation movement than News Corp's Rupert Murdoch. And, right on cue, Murdoch came on stage to help draw attention to two of the biggest media ownership stories in April -- just as Congress began considering the FCC's new media ownership rules.
After the Tribune Company announced that shrinking revenues may force it to sell off some newspaper properties, Murdoch stepped in what many thought would be a winning bid for the Long Island daily. But could News Corp own two TV stations, two daily newspapers and the Wall Street Journal? Is there no limit to the expansion of Rupert Murdoch's media empire? Headlines readied us for a colossal fight between Murdoch and the FCC: Murdoch Taking on FCC Media Rule, Would News Corp. Need FCC Help To Keep Stations, Newsday?, News Corp. Bid for Newsday May Face Political Snags... the Hollywood Reporter went as far to report Murdoch too powerful for government regulators. News Corp was also mentioned in the potential deal for Microsoft to purchase Yahoo.
In the Senate, a legislative veto of the FCC's new ownership rules passed an early hurdle winning unanimous approval from the Senate Commerce Committee. The resolution, introduced by Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND) needs approval of the full Senate, the House and President Bush's signature to overturn the FCC's decision to allow increased media ownership concentration. Although Congressional approval is possible -- perhaps likely -- President Bush may veto it.
In April, Benton published an interview with David Honig of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. At a time when the Government Accountability Office concluded that minority ownership of media properties remains limited as well as deficiencies in FCC ownership data collection, Honing points out that the FCC was, for decades, an active participant in preventing people of color from working in or attaining ownership of licensed facilities that used the public's airwaves. He asked, "What could be a more inefficient deployment of resources than having the entrepreneurial, managerial and creative wealth of a third of the country unable to find expression in the nation's most powerful industries?"
IV. Universal, Open Broadband
Microsoft's bid for Yahoo was not the lens for looking at the future of the Internet. As China vaulted past USA in number of Internet users, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation announced, "We need a debate in America that focuses on the most important issues like how to get fast broadband networks to all Americans; how to use IT to transform our health care system, transportation system, education system, and government; and how to encourage all organizations to become digital, thereby driving productivity and income growth and a better quality of life."
At the FCC, interested parties were commenting on a proposal that the Commission use subsidies traditionally marked to lower rural phone bills to expand the availability of broadband services throughout the country. The divide is between those who feel the support for broadband would be too costly and those who say the FCC must act accelerate the transition from 19th century basic phone technology to broadband -- the critical information infrastructure of the 21st century. Early in April, ten organizations urged Congress to focus on economic development in rural areas of the country. The organizations, representing rural communities across the country, stressed that broadband deployment, coupled with transportation, education and library services, is essential in stimulating economic development in rural America. Sen John Kerry (D-MA) agreed saying that federal action is needed to bring broadband service to regions without access to the Internet, in order to even the odds of competing in a global market.
Both the Senate Commerce Committee and the FCC held hearings in April on Network Neutrality. In part, regulators are reacting to reports that Comcast, the nation's largest Internet service provider, has blocked consumer access to content. Comcast swiftly moved to adjust the way it manges Internet traffic, but the plan was soon criticized by Network Neutrality advocates. As Free Press policy direct Ben Scott, profiled as "Network Neutrality's Quiet Crusader," said, "There have been policy moments in the past when the market has been shaped by decisions made in Washington -- radio in the 1930s, television in the 1950s and cable in the 1980s. That moment is now for the Internet."
April's Most-read Headlines
- Senate Network Neutrality Hearing Recap
- Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand
- 700 MHz Auction Oversight Hearing Recap
- Digital TV Converters May Be Faulty
- Tim Robbins Decries Media 'Abyss' in NAB Keynote
- Media Power in Wrong Hands Brings Neither "Peace of Mind nor Serenity of Spirit"
- Election Portends Legislative Action for Broadband Policy, VoIP
- Sen Clinton's Media Stance
- XM-Sirius Deal Opposed by States; Review Slips to May
- Groups Call on Congress to Address Rural Broadband Deployment
- ACA Chairman Says HDTV Exemption Gets To Root Of Capacity Issue
- Benton to FCC: Use USF to Accelerate Transition to Broadband