Benton RSS Feed
[Commentary] California senators are debating two bills that would make California the first state to legally sanction online poker.
The bills' many lobbyists and supporters argue that online gambling is already with us, since some people illegally play with offshore firms. That might be true, but it doesn't explain why we need to make the problem worse. More users equals more gambling addiction - with all of the economic and social costs that come along with it. These bills are bad news, and the Senate needs to reject them.
Sanctioning online poker is a bad bet for California
With the U.S. unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent, job creation is one of the rare issues that can cross party lines. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Reps. Doris Matsui (D-CA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA), is pushing legislation designed to simplify and strengthen the research and development tax credit by increasing it from 14 percent to 20 percent and making it permanent for businesses and investors.
The legislation could be of particular benefit to Northern California's growing alternative energy industry and high-tech companies in Silicon Valley. The American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2011 is co-sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-CT), as well as Reps Erick Paulsen (R-MN), Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Michael McCaul (R-TX). If passed, the legislation would cost about $100 billion over 10 years. President Obama's proposed 2012 budget supports making the R&D credit permanent and expanding it by 20 percent. Richer incentives for R&D would motivate companies to invest more in innovation. The expansion of the tax credit could "spur the creation of 162,000 jobs in the short run," according to a study released by the Information Technology and Innovation Fund in 2010. That group also estimated a credit expansion would lead to a $66 billion increase to the annual GDP and nearly 4,000 new American patents.
Lawmakers unite to make R&D tax credit permanent
House Republicans are vying for the reins in one of the few areas where regulating is still in style: online privacy.
House Energy and Commerce Trade Subcommittee Chair Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) put out a release indicating that her panel "has the lead on privacy matters." Her subcommittee will take up the issue this Spring, she said, indicating a particular interest in child protection measures.
But other House Republicans are not willing to cede their role in the privacy debate just yet.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) said shortly after Bono Mack's statement: "When I was Chairman of that subcommittee, I conducted the most extensive series of hearings on privacy." He indicated he is currently working on privacy legislation, as he did in the last Congress and in previous years.
House Republicans jockey for the reins: Regulating online ad companies
Two years after Obama pledged to reverse the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy and comply more closely with the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, The Associated Press grapples with many of the same frustrating roadblocks and head-scratching inconsistencies.
Several recent examples are described below. Exasperating delays and denials also affect ordinary citizens, researchers and businesses, and they frustrate the administration’s goal to be the most transparent in history. Obama’s administration this week defended its progress in disclosing more information rapidly and reducing backlogs of requests for information. Agencies also are posting online large sets of data on auto safety, air quality, crime, health care and employment, which means fewer requests have to be filed in the first place, they said. “Greater transparency and a more open government are happening right now,” said Melanie Pustay, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy. Her office is responsible for government-wide compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Yet it remains a hair-pulling, exhausting experience to ask for federal records from the government. The law can be complicated even when it’s applied properly. Patience is a virtue.
2 years after Obama ordered more open records, agencies still use baffling delays and denials
Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced a bill to boost the Federal Communications Commission's technical prowess.
The bill would allow commissioners to appoint technical advisers and require the National Academy of Sciences to study the FCC's technical policy and policymaking decisions and the personnel available to inform those decisions. The FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening (FCC TECH) Act would allow commissioners to appoint an electrical engineer or computer specialist to consult on technical issues. In a joint release outlining the bill, the senators suggest it is needed to combat an ongoing problem, or what they called the "glaring technical deficiencies at the FCC, which left unaddressed could continue to hamper American innovation and competitiveness."
Bill Introduced To Boost FCC Tech Expertise
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that the following items will be on the tentative agenda for the next open meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 7, 2011:
- Pole Attachment Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration: An Order that reforms the Commission's access, rates, and enforcement rules for utility pole attachments, reducing barriers to deployment and availability of broadband and other wireline and wireless services, and promoting competition.
- Accelerating Broadband Deployment NOI: A Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on key challenges and best practices in expanding the reach and reducing the cost of broadband deployment, including by improving policies for access to government rights of way and wireless facility siting requirements.
- Data Roaming Second Report and Order: A Second Report and Order that adopts a rule requiring facilities-based providers of commercial mobile data services to offer data roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, subject to certain limitations.
- Signal Boosters Declaratory Ruling, NPRM, and Order: A Declaratory Ruling, NPRM and Order that helps to fill gaps in wireless coverage and expands broadband in rural and difficult-to-serve areas, while protecting wireless networks from harm.
- Structure and Practices of Video Relay Service Program: Report and Order will adopt rules to detect and prevent fraud and abuse in the provision of video relay service ("VRS"). Also, a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to require all VRS providers to obtain certification from the FCC under new, tighter certification procedures in order to receive compensation from the TRS Fund.
- Reliability and Continuity of Communications Networks NOI: A Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on existing reliability standards for communications networks, including broadband networks, and ways to further strengthen the reliability and continuity of communications networks to avoid disruptions of service during major emergencies, such as large-scale natural and man-made disasters.
Pole Attachments, Data Roaming Headline FCC's April Agenda
The House on voted to cut federal funding for National Public Radio after two hours of debate in which Democrats accused Republicans of following through on a political grudge against NPR, and Republicans insisted that Congress needs to cut spending by all means possible.
The House approved the bill, H.R. 1076, by a 228-192 vote. Every voting Democrat voted against it, and seven Republicans joined them: Reps. Sean Duffy (WI), Chris Gibson (NY), Richard Hanna (NY), Steve LaTourette (OH), Dave Reichert (WA), Patrick Tiberi (OH), and Rob Woodall (GA).
Republicans insisted that they held no political grudge against NPR, and said the recent video of NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller saying NPR doesn't need federal funds is a signal that funding can be cut. Democrats alternately criticized Republicans for cutting a valuable service, and mocked them by casting their proposal as an attack on specific NPR radio hosts. House Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said Republicans told her on Wednesday that taxpayers should not have to pay for items they disagree with, which she rejected. "Well, that's an interesting theory, but democracies don't work that way," Rep Slaughter said. "If they could, my husband and I and two-thirds of people in America would gladly be excused from paying the $8 billion a month that we pay for a war that we profoundly disagree with."
Because the legislation did not go through the normal Committee process, there have been no hearings, testimony, or expert review, and, a House Commerce Committee minority staff memo pointed out, Members of Congress might have little information about the impact of this legislation. The staff provided analysis, on a district by district basis, about how the legislation will affect public radio stations. Overall, this analysis, which focuses on public radio stations that receive CPB grants, finds that prohibiting the use of federal funds to purchase radio content would negatively impact 414 stations across the country. These stations serve listening areas in 280 congressional districts in all 50 states. They provide a total of 7,800 jobs.
Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said: "Today, the House passed a bill that would significantly restrict public broadcasting stations' ability to acquire programming that they feel best serves the needs of their communities. Every day, these stations serve the informational and educational needs of the public with programming that contributes to the health and well-being of the country in a way that would not be possible without federal support. The American people overwhelmingly agree that public broadcasting is a service worthy of the federal investment. At a time when international events, such as the recent uprisings in Libya and the earthquake in Japan, have a direct and immediate impact on this country, public media serves as a trusted source for informative, in-depth coverage of international, national and local news. Rather than penalize public broadcasting, the debate should focus on strengthening and supporting this valuable national asset."
The Obama Administration said it "strongly opposes" a House measure that would permanently defund NPR, but stopped short of making a veto threat. The Administration publicized its stance on the Republican-sponsored bill just a few hours before the House is expected to vote on it. In lieu of the move to ban funding, the Obama administration noted that the president's budget calls for "targeted reductions" to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the main federal funding arm for NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service. "The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1076, which would unacceptably prohibit federal funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the use of Federal funds by public radio stations to acquire radio content," reads a statement from the Office of Management and Budget.
"At a time when other news organizations are cutting back and the voices of pundits are drowning out fact-based reporting and thoughtful analysis, NPR and public radio stations are delivering in-depth news and information respectfully and with civility," said NPR's interim CEO Joyce Slocum. "It would be a tragedy for America to lose this national treasure."
"This legislation, which would destroy a public radio system that has served the American people well for 40 years, has been passed by the House without the benefit of a single hearing on the subject," said Patrick Butler, president of the Public Media Association (PMA). ""While it has been portrayed as responding to the will of the American people, the legislation in fact defies the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans, who have consistently said they support continued funding of public broadcasting and view it as the second-best use of tax dollars, exceeded only by national defense."
House approves bill to defund NPR District by District Impact (House Commerce Committee minority staff) House votes to cut off federal funding for National Public Radio (Associated Press) Statement (CPB) House votes to cut funding to NPR (Reuters) House Votes To Cut NPR's Federal Funds (NPR) House Votes to Defund NPR (MediaWeek) House Votes to Defund NPR (B&C) Democrats lash out at NPR defunding attempt (The Hill - process) NPR Outrage in House (National Journal - process) White House stops short of veto threat on NPR defunding (The Hill - Obama) House votes to move forward on defunding NPR (Washington Post) Public Media Fire Back at House Republicans (B&C)
[Commentary] In the discussions about the future of federal funding, specifically Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) and Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) funding, there’s been nodding attention paid to its disproportionate impact on rural America. But little attention is paid to what that really means in practice.
Public broadcasting looks vastly different in the various communities it serves, and that is intentional. PBS and NPR are the best-known public media, but they are not its only incarnations. Public broadcasting is a vast network of 1,300 individual and independent stations, serving defined local areas, and answerable to their community’s unique needs. In an era of unchecked media consolidation that has made so much of our news and entertainment sound the same, public broadcasting still embraces its local roots and local voice.
Thirty-nine of those 1,300 stations are located on, and primarily serve, Native communities. Thirty-three more are waiting to be built. A centuries-long legacy of isolation and economic and cultural exploitation has kept Native people poor and powerless, but that is starting to change. Media have a vital role to play in supporting economic and community development, preserving and building cultural foundations, and encouraging political and civic engagement on tribal lands. The capacity of Native people to access, operate, produce, participate in and control our own media is critical to the future of the 565 Native Nations in this country who have long been invisible or misrepresented in media.
Mainstream commercial media coverage of Native communities is rare, so public radio is a vital resource on Native lands. If tribal stations go dark, as they likely will if funding is cut, a vital source of information in and out of Indian Country is lost. Where tribal newspapers are disappearing, basic 911 and emergency services still don't exist, and broadband penetration is at less than 10 percent, the picture is dire. Radio provides a lifeline to Native communities, one that cannot be replaced.
Native public radio is local radio. It reaches vast stretches of tribal lands that still hold pockets of villages and isolated homes. When trouble comes in the form of flash floods, wildfire, tornadoes or other matters of public safety, Native radio is the first and often only information source. And when there is occasion for celebration, Native radio links families, clans, and communities with news of births, marriages, school events and sports victories. Tribal governments, Indian Health services and others use Native radio to help inform, educate and mobilize their constituents. And these stations carry on the oral traditions of a cultural heritage centuries in existence, bringing a contemporary voice to Native languages.
The Real Value of Public Broadcasting
The House Communications Subcommittee will hold a hearing in April on spectrum issues, Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said. Topics at the hearing will include incentive auctions as well as allegations that wireless and cable companies are hoarding airwaves rather than deploying them. He is skeptical that the Federal Communications Commission’s plan for reclaiming a large swath of broadcast spectrum from broadcasters is as voluntary as the FCC claims it is. "What’s voluntary?” he asked during a Media Institute speech. “When I hear voluntary, and I hear $27.8 billion and I hear repacking and then I hear what the FCC chairman said this week, it doesn't sound very voluntary.”
Spectrum hoarding heads to the House in April Walden Question FCC Spectrum Plan (TVNewsCheck) Walden Concerned About FCC's Definitions of Voluntary (Broadcasting&Cable)
T-Mobile, Sprint and other smaller wireless companies want a new Federal Communications Commission regulation to keep them relevant in a world where it’s becoming less important to say “Can you hear me now?” than to text “Can you read me now?”
The smaller carriers want the increasingly valuable mobile data market to be governed by the same sort of FCC roaming rules that now enable their mobile voice customers to make calls anywhere in the country. The companies are lobbying the commission hard to vote on an order requiring the nation’s largest wireless carriers, Verizon and AT&T, to enter into “data-roaming” agreements with them. Without those accords, smaller carriers say they can't compete with larger companies that own the largest swaths of wireless spectrum commercially available. “This really is getting to be a matter of survival for many of our companies out there,” said Steve Berry, president and CEO of the Rural Cellular Association, which represents rural wireless telecom providers in the United States.
Wireless data at center of tug of war