Category: Uncategorized

Kill Bill: Steven’s Commerce Committee Posts “Tube” (I mean Telecom) Bill

Here’s an example of the narrow-minded, telecom lobbyist written, communications policies that undermine the development of a U.S. democratic media system in the digital era. Congress–as usual–doesn’t really want to acknowledge why the cable and telephone industry are so afraid of the Internet as we now know it (real competition for ideas and commercial advantage). Leaders such as Sen. Stevens have their heads in the digital sands. By letting a few narrow (but powerful) interests–such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner–dominate the distribution of digital media, Stevens/Joe Barton and company are undermining both democratic discourse and competition.
This is the marked-up bill passed by Senate Commerce. It should be called the “Telephone & Cable Monopoly Giveaway and Anti Consumer/Community Act of 2006.” We will be back soon with a full analysis. But it’s revealing that the U.S. public is treated as “subscribers” or “consumers”–not as citizens and others deserving a broad and expanded set of rights.
http:// www. commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/HR5252RS.pdf

PS: The Stevens Committee also released–and then pulled, we were told–a “brochure” promoting its bill. Sen. Stevens apparently feels desperate that his bill–and lack of understanding about how the Internet works–was getting so much bad press. I guess he–and his aides–don’t know much about PR either. Here’s the brochure.

Why Take AT&T’s $1 Mil. when it Wants to Destroy a Democratic ‘Net in the U.S.?

(we won’t comment yet. Just see news story below)

From: http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2006/07/31/daily5.html

AT&T Foundation gives $1 million for technology access
San Antonio Business Journal – 3:04 PM CDT Monday

The AT&T Foundation has announced a $1 million grant to provide new technology resources for people with all types of disabilities.

The grant to the Community Technology Centers’ Network (CTCNet) is part of a three-year AccessAll initiative by AT&T to provide technology access to underserved communities. It will be used to fund training for community technology center staff on universal design and assistive technology that can be used to accommodate multiple learning styles and abilities.

CTCNet will make the AT&T funds available to regional centers through a competitive application process.

(The grant) will enable CTCNet to work with our member centers to demonstrate standards in universal design for space, learning, hardware and software,” says Kavita Singh, executive director of CTCNet.

The AT&T Foundation is the philanthropic arm of San Antonio-based AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T), one of the largest telecommunications holding companies in the world.

hour loan 24 paydaypersonal loan $2,600loans acsloans agricultural401k loanacs loanalaska jumbo loanmortgage refinance loan alabama Map

Time Warner’s AOL: Bad Broadband Karma

No matter how Richard Parsons and company spin it, AOL is ultimately a loser. What the press coverage on AOL’s ever-changing business model ignores is that the online service doesn’t have legal access to broadband. AOL is frozen in digital time, able to offer most users only outmoded dial-up access. But AOL’s ignoble demise is fitting—given the company’s abandonment of its call for non-discriminatory “open access” to broadband (the key issue underlying today’s network neutrality debate).

It was AOL, after all, that led the corporate campaign in the late 1990’s calling on the Clinton FCC and the Congress to require non-discriminatory access for ISPs to cable broadband. AOL argued—as net neutrality proponents are today—that the Internet’s success had been based on federal policies requiring phone networks to serve everyone in a fair and open manner. AOL’s Steve Case understood that soon high-speed Internet service would replace dial-up and that cable systems would be the leading provider of broadband. Case desperately sought to have cable operate its Internet access service under the same federal policy safeguards that governed phone company dial-up. (He even backed a non-profit group called “No Gatekeepers”).

The cable industry, including Time Warner, used its political clout to prevent any policy that would have ensured the U.S. broadband system be operated in a non-discriminatory and more competitive manner. Recognizing that AOL would be shut out of broadband and that its future was doomed, it engineered a take-over of number two cable giant Time Warner. Both AOL’s Steve Case and Time Warner’s Gerry Levin shared a similar view for the future of the Internet—to turn it into an even more powerful advertising medium than television. To achieve this goal, Case quickly dropped his call for “open access” for broadband. He foolishly believed that by having AOL merge with Time Warner it would be part of the cable “costa nostra,” its broadband access assured.

On the day the merger deal was announced, Case stood by Levin as open access to broadband became another victim of corporate greed. Levin declared that the new AOL Time Warner was “going to take the open access issue out of Washington, and out of city hall and put it into the marketplace, into the commercial arrangements that should occur to provide the kind of access for as much content as possible.” That was shorthand for: “AOL will have access through us. Everyone else forgetaboutit.”

So now Dick Parsons—who was part of the team that created the most infamously unsuccessful merger in U.S. media history—is once again re-engineering AOL. It may in the short term bring in more ad dollars, helping it fulfill the Case/Levin/Parsons vision that the Internet’s future is interactive TV-like marketing. But AOL’s real problem is that it can’t offer its users broadband since it has no legal access to it—a political cause it gave up when the going got rough in the (admittedly) politically corrupt culture of Washington, D.C. media politics. That’s why we believe the eventual demise of AOL is a fitting conclusion to its own self-serving role in the U.S. broadband debate.

AT&T’s Blue Room: Music Fans Should Beware of this Anti-Internet Freedom Sponsored Site

Guess who’s the “online broadcaster of several of the hottest summer concerts”—including this weekend’s Lollapalozza. It’s AT&T. The anti-network neutrality phone giant is now “aligned with artists such as Coldplay and Keith Urban,” notes Ad Age. This summer, AT&T’s Blue Room is bringing online music fans “LIVE webcasts from Coachella, Bonnaroo, Austin City Limits, Lollapalooza.” The Blue Room site helps debut music from CBS and has interviews with many leading music artists (including Yung Joc, Rodney Atkins, LeToya, and Tom Petty). Naturally, Blue Room runs online ads for AT&T’s high-speed Internet service. AT&T is also making a major push to reach others online, including bloggers (Project D.U.).

We think it would be very cool for Blue Room’s users—and participating music artists—to make it clear that they want AT&T to support Internet Freedom (network neutrality). They should demand that the phone giant stop its political campaign to control the future of broadband in the U.S. Otherwise, they should give AT&T’s digital monopoly–including Blue Room–a real case of the blues.

Source: “A Cool, Hip AT&T? Step Inside Blue Room.” Abbey Klaassen, Ad Age. July 10, 2006

AT&T as Ma Censor: Playing the `Indecency’ Card in its Anti-Net Neutrality Campaign

In a reflection of how desperate AT&T’s executives are to stave off an open broadband medium in the U.S., the former SBC is willing to use any tactic—no matter how despicable and dangerous. It appears that AT&T is now seeking to inflame conservative family groups, as well as parents in general, by claiming that network neutrality will usher in a torrent of what it deems to be inappropriate content. Communications Daily reports that an AT&T spokesperson confirmed that:
conservative family groups’ social concerns are on a “very long and growing list” of the net neutrality campaign’s unintended consequences. “All content’s not the same and it shouldn’t be treated the same” if consumers are really in charge. “You’ll continue to see these kinds of things be brought up more publicly” as people learn about the issue, she said.” [“Net Neutrality May Face Battle from Family Values Groups,” July 17, 2007. Subscription required].

But what is most telling in this quote is how AT&T is willing to act as Ma Censor, and readily seek to place a range of content off-limits. Today, they are offering to block what many parents would likely agree is disturbing content. But tomorrow, they could seek to block all kinds of programming necessary for a vibrant and informed democracy. (This is from a company, of course, who doesn’t think twice about handing over to the Bush NSA all kinds of personal information about us).

It also reflects how AT&T is so disingenuous in the net neutral debate. Without an open ‘Net safeguard, independent content providers who seek to offer users quality content–including educational programming for children– won’t be able to readily provide it. That’s because AT&T’s fast lanes will be jam-packed with paid for video games, personalized advertising, and the latest offerings from Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network.

AT&T’s new corporate motto should be: Fueling the flames of censorship so we can make a fast buck.

Disney and Verizon: Broadband Lies about Diversity

People of color have not fared well in the U.S. in terms of owning/controlling programming content. Channels serving “minority” audiences have often been created to serve the political purposes of the media lobby. BET was financially backed to help the cable industry secure lucrative franchises from big cities. More recently, Comcast supported the new TV One cable channel to give it greater leverage with officials from the African American community. As we have pointed out previously, the TV industry views the African American and Hispanic “market” as great places to sell soap and other products—not as communities deserving a meaningful range of serious and independent content services. In the emerging interactive broadband era, the stakes are especially high, in our opinion, to ensure that there are well-supported local and national services serving a variety of needs—including news, public affairs, and culture.

Last Monday, executives from both Verizon and Disney claimed that their corporate policies opposing an open Internet and ending community oversight of cable TV would “help improve black and Hispanic presence in the industry” (according to the off-line trade journal Communications Daily, 7/11/06: “Verizon, Disney Executives Say Their Policy Positions Good for Minority Communications”). The executives spoke at a conference held by the Minority Media & Telecom Council.

Verizon’s EVP/Super-Lobbyist (and former Congressperson) Tom Tauke, in discussing why his company opposes network neutrality, said that such a safeguard wasn’t needed because “all players can reach their audiences over broadband.” Disney’s Preston Padden [once the media industry leader fighting for network neutrality] echoed Tauke’s perspectives that people of color have nothing to worry about. He said, noted the trade report, that “near as I can tell, the Internet is completely color-blind.”

But both Verizon and Disney aren’t being honest. They know well that absent network neutrality, a private system for broadband distribution is evolving in the U.S. Powerful gatekeepers are emerging for broadband—just as we’ve had with broadcast and cable TV. Deals are being struck which give a privileged few—such as what was done between Verizon and Disney last year—real access to audiences. Everyone else will be a second-class digital citizen, at best.

I fear that absent action, both in the political front and in the marketplace, the kind of rich digital environment that would meet the full needs of communities now marginalized in our media system will not readily emerge. That’s why it’s time for a serious response to the lies coming from Disney, Verizon and others. We are at a critical crossroads—a turning point—with digital communications. Now is the time to stake a claim for broadband to the PC, TV, and mobile networks. Otherwise, people from America’s diverse communities could end up responding to images and content controlled by others—folks principally interested in selling and making steady bucks.

QoS and the Network Neutrality debate: Gaming Policymakers to Win the `Triple Play’

A refrain from the phone and cable industry, in the debate over network neutrality, is they have to manage their networks. Hence, their claim they need the authority to oversee traffic flows—such as ensuring a time-sensitive Voice over the Internet (VOIP) phone call is promptly delivered (while allowing more time, say, for an email to reach you). Such traffic management techniques are often called “Quality of Service” or QoS. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and others suggest that they would be hamstrung by a net neutrality safeguard, because it would prevent or impede them from using QoS techniques to ensure time sensitive information is given priority.

But network neutrality proponents aren’t saying that network providers shouldn’t be able to fairly and efficiently manage the network. We are all for a digital traffic cop who works for the good of all. But phone and cable companies want a private electronic operative on the beat. They want to use QoS to give their traffic (video, data, etc.) a turbo-charged passage via fast lanes into our PCs, TV’s, and mobile devices. Why? So they can enjoy what they are calling the “triple play.” That’s the latest communications industry buzzword ((goodbye synergy!) reflecting plans to monetize as much as possible our digital lives. Triple Play means that Verizon or Time Warner will lock up customers by selling them voice, video, and data services in either or both wired and wireless formats. As part of their “Triple Play” business model, phone and cable companies want to use QoS to extract (extort) fees from content providers who also want to travel on fast lanes by getting a friendly electronic nod from the private traffic cops.

We urge you to read some of the literature illustrating how control over the network is key to AT&T and others plans to score a triple play. And then we ask—do we really want to let a few companies control the U.S. Internet’s digital destiny? Tell Senator Stevens—who doesn’t seem to really get the problem—that he should stand up for Internet freedom. (We also urge you to contact Senator Inouye and ask him to oppose any legislation that fails to protect U.S. online communications).

The Washington Post’s editorial board on Network Neutrality: Boy, do they need someone who knows the media business working there!

The Washington Post’s editorial position on media and communications policy issues has generally taken a pro-consolidation line over the years. This is ironic and sad, especially given the concerns expressed by the paper’s two top editors about the dramatic decline of quality in U.S. journalism. But in their much acclaimed “News about the News: American Journalism in Peril,” Len Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser fail to acknowledge at all the role which consolidation contributes to the deterioration of journalism. For the impact of media industry lobbying on media ownership has led to newsroom cutbacks and an industry orientation to journalism `light.’ But Downie and Kaiser—as well as their editorial board colleagues—fail to make the connection between regulatory safeguards and a media system that serves a broad range of information needs in a democracy. Nor is the Post ever clear to its readers about what it is really doing when it comes to lobbying Washington to advance its own corporate interests. For example, the paper has never well explained the Post Co.’s political support for the elimination of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard (which is about to be taken up, once more, by the FCC).

In the case of network neutrality, the Post should have been more candid about the political role its parent (Washington Post Co.) is playing. It’s not as simple as [we have] “interests on both sides of this issue.” The Post Co’s cable subsidiary president, Thomas O. Might, has been on the cable lobby board of directors (NCTA) for years. The Post therefore has been intimately involved in the closed-door strategy developed by the NCTA to over-turn the rules requiring an open, non-discriminatory Internet. In addition, the Post’s clout enables it to distribute its content over GE/NBC/Microsoft online properties–something a start-up would find it difficult to readily obtain.
On the merits of the Post’s argument, we can only say that they are either being disingenuous with readers or are incredibly naïve about the media business. In its editorial, they dismiss our concerns that–in the absence of network neutrality– the Internet will come to resemble the cable T.V. industry. They claim that technology will ensure the low-cost production of content. But what they ignore is that like cable, the company that controls the wires (or airwaves, in the case of wireless), can determine how each packet of content fares on the network. The few cable and phone companies, which now control 98% of the U.S. broadband market, can use their power to choose winners and losers (as the cable TV industry has done with video programming). In addition, those content providers that can best promote and process their interactive content will also have a digital leg up. Without net neutrality, the online programming owned or affiliated with the phone and cable broadband duopoly will always be in the lead.

As for speculation—it’s not. The equipment to control the Net’s future is being rolled out, as we speak

Will Microsoft, Yahoo!, Diller, etc. Send in the Ads to Save Net Neutrality?

It’s time for the six big new media corporate supporters of network neutrality to get real—or go back to Silicon Valley, Seattle, or Aspen. What’s needed now—after the disastrous and humiliating vote in the House—is the one thing that politicians really respect and fear—TV ads. Letters from Microsoft and visits from cyber wunderkinds aren’t enough, especially with the PR and lobbying blitz underwritten by the Telco’s. As the Senate Commerce Committee takes up network neutrality this week, it’s time for Gates, Brin, Barry Diller, Terry Semel, and Bezos to get real (we acknowledge with respect the work done by eBay CEO Meg Whitman asking one million of its members to take action).

The copy for the ad is a no-brainer: `The big Phone and Cable Companies (yes—our partners AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) want to have a monopoly over the Internet. They want to jack up the prices you and I pay for service. They want to transform the ‘Net into a pay as surf toll road filled with commercials and the kinds of programs the FCC will soon impose stiffer fines for. Help us stop them. (So, okay, that’s not the ad. But they can afford their own copywriter.)

So, we ask. Will these companies devote the resources—a pittance to their bottom lines—to help save the U.S. digital communications system from these corporate cutthroats? Or, are they really a two-faced bunch of new media conglomerates that don’t have the best interests for the democratic potential of the broadband Internet at heart?

Watch your TV screens to find out.

As the House Votes on Net Neutrality, A Case Study of a Non-Neutral Net/Verizon-Disney’s Broadband Deal Illustrates Power of Telco Powerhouses

When Verizon and Disney signed a “long-term programming agreement” in 2005, it illustrated why the Congress should enact net neutrality safeguards. Disney sought to secure the broadband gate keeping power that Verizon (and only a few others) have over both digital TV and Internet distribution. Under the deal, Verizon agreed to distribute (via its FIOS service) a dozen channels on the preferential expanded basic tier. They included: ABC Family, ABC News Now, Disney Channel, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, Ton Disney and SOAP net. Disney also gained favorable distribution for its Spanish language content and its video-on-demand library,

But more importantly, Verizon agreed to bless a Disney owned “broadband product portfolio” including “ABC News Now, Disney Connection, ESPN360, Movies.com and a newly launched broadband soap opera product.” This will likely give Disney content the fast-lane service (including better promotion) that Verizon, AT&T and cable want to impose for the online medium. In addition, in an example of how a Verizon can police the Internet for its favored customers, the agreement included a promise by the phone giant to identify subscribers who are infringing on Disney’s “copyrighted works.” Verizon agreed to “forward and track notices to its subscribers allegedly engaged in the unauthorized distribution of Disney’s copyrighted works, without identifying the subscribers to Disney, and either provide subscriber identifying information pursuant to lawfully served subpoenas or terminate Verizon Internet service provided to subscribers who have infringed Disney copyrights and received multiple notices.”

Without network neutrality, every content provider will have to try and negotiate some deal with a Verizon or Comcast. The Internet should operate without gate keepers and online snoops. Let’s not let them turn the Net into Mickey Mouse. Congress must stand up to the special phone and cable interests