FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: Save the ‘Net

Commissioner Michael Copps give the opening keynote speech today at the Freedom to Connect conference. Copps is that rare high-ranking government who places the interests of the average person over the country’s wealthy elite (such as the phone, cable, and broadcast lobby). Copps has continually been in the forefront defending the public interest on both the media consolidation and broadband communications issues. His full speech won’t be online today, but here’s an excerpt (thanks to business2blogs.com):

“I think this is one of the most important dialogues taking place in the country. We view the Internet as a place of freedom and openness, a place where anyone with a good idea can develop a business plan with global reach. But news reports have sounded the warning bell where new broadband toll bridges may restrict services like VOIP or your ability to watch videos over the Web. The more concentrated that network providers get, the easier it will be for them to become gatekeepers. We cannot let that happen. If that occurs history will not forgive us, nor should it.

We still have a long way to go to secure the future of the Internet. Network providers are saying Websites should pay for broadband. This misses the mark because Website content is what makes network providers’ services valuable in the first place. It seems to me they want to double dip [by charging both consumers and Websites for the same content]. If providers with bottleneck control can erect tolls that inverts the entire democratic network of the Internet. It makes the pipe intelligent and the end-user dumb. It artificially constrains the supply of bandwidth.

Braodband is going be one of the drivers of our economy, so we need to get our national policy right. More I important we need to get a national policy. It is not just about a better Internet, this is about a better America.”

USTA’s “TV Freedom”: You Can Fool Almost All the Politicians All of the Time

Shades of the 1996 Telecom Act, Congress is about to do it again. Joe Barton and company will give away our digital communications treasure house in exchange for some smooth talking lobbying snake oil. Passing out the potion last week was Telco uber-lobbyist Walter B. McCormick, Jr—President and CEO of the United States Telecom Association (USTA). We wish that committee witnesses would be made to swear an oath that what they are testifying is the whole truth and—you know what.

For starters, McCormack actually claimed that the U.S. has “government managed competition” and it was “time” to “embrace market-based competition.” Hello! When was the last time the FCC stopped a telecom merger, rolled back consumer rates or did anything but lie like a obedient puppy at the feet of our telecom conglomerates? For example, recently the FCC has given (see 8/5/05) USTA’s members tremendous control over broadband—enabling them to soon begin imposing a “pay us when you surf and pay us as you post content” regime.

McCormick also had the audacity to claim that the Barton bill was going to give the U.S. “video choice.” “Video choice” is a code word for now the U.S. will have two big monopolies over broadband and IP-based video communications: cable and telcos. A real “video choice” would mean we could bypass these gatekeepers and choose whatever provider and programs we desired. McCormick promised consumers would save lots of money, once the phone companies competed with cable. Does anyone take that seriously? Besides, the cable and telco lobbies told Congress the exact same thing back in 1996 (and several times before that).

Reflecting that hubris is always present when big bucks are at stake, McCormick actually called for the removal of the pathetically weak “network neutrality” language in the bill (which would send any broadband discrimination complaint to the dead letter office at the FCC). Any legislation that would ensure an open Internet, said McCormick, was “premature” and would “chill innovation and investment” (meaning what Verizon, AT&T and others hope will be fat bottom lines as they charge us all higher rates for service). Finally, illustrating that USTA members are fearful of any competition at all, McCormick urged the Telecommunications subcommittee to remove the provision that would help encourage municipal networks.

It’s time that folks stood up against the selling out of our digital rights to such powerful special interests as the USTA and NCTA.

Rep. Joe Barton and Co. destroy “Community Communications”

The Barton-Hastert-Rush bill has been concocted by telephone industry lobbyists (with some recent help by the cable industry) to remove any scintilla of oversight the public might have over broadband communications. It reflects how corrupt so many lawmakers are in the nation’s capital—and how the big money from special interests easily buys them off. It also illustrates how the same tired communications lobbying pleas–heard most recently when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed–conveniently provides political cover for a huge giveaway. Just free us from rules designed to protect the public, claim (fill in the blank) the Bells, cable, or broadcasters, and the country will be awash in jobs, better health care, and competition. These are really code words for: get ready for an even bigger monopoly over communications.

The Bells want to string out their wires in the most affluent neighborhoods of the country—all so they can profit from what they know will be a IPTV gold mine: pay-per-view movies, on-demand TV programming, and interactive advertising. They also wanted to unleash their broadband business model that will give us the pay-as-you-surf Infobahn: that’s why they oppose “network neutrality” safeguards.

However, the U.S.’s last remaining form of local control over communications—known as cable TV franchising—has stood in the way. Cable TV was supposed to be a “community communications” service. That’s the way it was sold to the U.S. back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Each community would have the ability to ensure that the powerful medium of cable broadband (yes—it was called that even back then) would serve the local public interest. Cable companies were required to negotiate an agreement with local government before they could offer service, called a franchise. This process permitted local government to obtain communications services that would be especially beneficial for their residents. So cities have been able to negotiate for their schools to be connected to the Internet. They were able to negotiate for networks that connected all their public buildings, important for city services and public safety. Finally, local franchises permitted cities to negotiate for communications services that provided for public, educational and governmental public access channels.

And it’s now about to be swept away. It was never perfect—far from it. The cable lobby used its vast resources to buy off politicians at the local, state, and national level. A system meant for local service became, as we know, primarily a medium for national programming and advertising. But the concept of local public oversight over multichannel communications services has remained an important one.

Smart communities around the country began negotiating for pieces of cable’s broadband capacity. Not just a few channels for public access, but a modest portion of bandwidth that could deliver a multitude of local digital communications services. Cities had asked for their broadband networks to be operated under an “open access” or “network neutrality” regime. More importantly, cities had the political leverage of the franchise to ensure that cable companies couldn’t “redline” against low-income neighborhoods.

The phone companies were horrified that they would actually have to provide unique public service for each of the communities they intended to pump out digital dollars from. They were frightened that local community leaders might actually be able to hold their networks accountable to serve the community. So they used their deep pockets to push through favorable state legislation and now, it appears, in the Congress (take a look at Joe Barton and Dennis Hastert’s top contributors).

We are about to lose all this, especially the important principle of community communications. It is to be replaced by a “national franchise” that doesn’t provide the public with any leverage to ensure their cities receive what should be substantial benefits in the digital age. Under the bill, communities won’t be able to obtain any help to ensure they are networked and connected. Public access “channels”—supposedly the public’s voice—won’t have the capacity to remain a vital form of communications in the broadband era. Under the proposed law, the cable industry will also be able to soon escape from their current franchises. The bill does next-to-nothing to address the dangers to the public as both the phone and cable industry transform the broadband Internet into a bigger digital gravy train (the so-called network neutrality issue).

Both the cities and the public interest community haven’t really fought the Barton bill with the ferocious opposition it requires. Some public interest groups have decided to offer a form of trade-off, mistakenly believing that they can win support for network neutrality safeguards by giving the Bells a national franchise. They are naive if they believe such a deal would occur. More importantly, we are giving away an important principle: the right of communities to ensure the public benefits from broadband communications.

It’s true that the Bell-backed lobbying effort seems unstoppable. But the concept of “community communications” is even more necessary, in my opinion, in this new era. We will be awash with all kinds of national services—and connected to international ones. But if our digital transformation isn’t designed to benefit real people where they live—what’s it good for?

free sprint ringtone 5350 lgnokia absoluteley 3595 free ringtonesamanda carrington bedford2300 ringtone vi sanyoadvocate barrington shepherd good6225 ringtone nokia pm freeamc theater barringtontheatre barrington amc Map

Aren’t You Ashamed–Rep. Bobby Rush?

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.) is the lone Democrat on the House Telecommunications Subcommittee sponsoring the Barton-Hastert broadband media monopolization bill of 2006. A former “activist,” Rush now appears to be siding with his long-time “top contributors” SBC (# 4) and Verizon (#18). Rush’s support has enabled House Commerce Chair Joe Barton to claim his bill has bi-partisan backing, reports Broadcasting & Cable magazine. The Barton-Hastert-Rush bill weakens the ability of communities to ensure that the broadband digital media environment truly addresses issues of inclusion, discrimination, public service, and opportunity. SBC (now AT&T) has an important presence in Chicago, so it’s not suprising that they could readily “reach out and touch” a local pol. But it’s shameful that Rep. Rush has helped give political cover to big telecommunications lobbying interests. It should be noted that Rep. Rush has also received money from the cable lobby–but ultimately they also stand to benefit from the Barton giveaway bill (we will turn to the bill in our next post).

For too long, politicians on both sides of the aisle have allowed themseleves to be no more than puppets for the media lobby. The list of Democrats who–like Rep. Rush–have placed the interests of the media monopoly over their constituents–is a sad commentary in itself. But in the the case of Rep. Rush, he may be taking AT&T’s dollars–but it makes no sense.

It’s Time To Enact a “Truth in Academic Research” Communications Industry Labeling Law

Too many academics and scholars are part of the communications industry lobbying complex. In Congress and at the FCC, academic testimony and filings from scholars support the arguments of industry. Such scholarly contributions are meant to provide a patina of respectability for policy positions that ultimately undermine the interests of the broad public at large.

These scholars seldom reveal that either they or their academic institution have received handsome grants or other funding from the very interests that their research politically supports. They are treated with respect because our society still views academics as dispassionate and scientifically-focused investigators. But instead of being impressed with a Ph.D. or an academic appointment at a prestigious university, the first question policymakers should ask scholars is: “are either you or your institution receiving money from any of the vested commercial interests involved in this issue.”

Take for example “senior research fellow” Dr. Jerry Ellig from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.” Dr. Ellig has recently testified before Congress and filed at the FCC on the issue of local cable franchising. The good doctor finds that local franchising is a wasteful practice, costs consumers billions “in higher prices,” is unnecessary, and that there should be stringent limits on the number of local public service channels provided a community.” Prof. Ellig cited the “careful and independent analysis employing contemporary economic scholarship” he used in developing his submission to the FCC. Ellig’s work is, of course, highly beneficial to the telephone lobby. Right now AT&T, Verizon and others are working to destroy the role local government can play in any oversight of broadband communications.

But Prof. Ellig failed to acknowledge, in his written testimony and FCC filing, that his own Mercatus Center was the recent recipient (2005) of a $100,000 grant from SBC (now AT&T). He also did not acknowledge that SBC has also provided generous support to George Mason University itself. Nor did he list the other financial support Mercatus receives that links it to a variety of think-tanks and non-profit groups that also receive telephone industry support (and also advocate on its behalf). Perhaps the Prof. absent-mindly forgot to mention that his university was also the recipient of a generous gift from Verizon to build the “Verizon Auditorium” on its campus. Finally, perhaps too he should have added in a footnote that his Mercatus Center’s website highlights how “special” donors can participate at the “exclusive Founders Circle Retreat held each spring.” Among the past events for this exclusive club was a talk by former Congressman J.C Watts, an advisor to SBC.

That’s why policymakers should really insist on full disclosure. Professional academic organizations should enforce a code of conduct that requires scholars to be forthright about any financial ties. As an ever-growing number of astro-turf, front-groups, and “unaffiliated” scholars ply their trade in DC and elsewhere, one should ask: Pardon me. Please show me your funding.

Annenberg Center’s Net Neutral Principles: Not Enough to Protect our Digital Future in U.S.

The folks at USC’s Annenberg Center have crafted some “principles” on network neutrality. We have to say at the outset we always have strong reservations about positions taken by academic institutions that take huge amounts of media and communications industry cash. Places like Annenberg/USC and UCLA are also always loath to really take on their Los Angeles show-biz industry neighbors. Perhaps that’s why their “principles” don’t really adequately protect the Internet’s future. We also wonder how they developed such proposals, as their website doesn’t reveal who made up the “group of senior communications experts” who met to hash them out in February. We do see that one of the people at Annenberg crafting the principles is Simon Wilkie, who has been helping the folks at the Progress and Freedom Foundation turn over our media system to their communications monopolist supporters.
The good news is that Annenberg did come out in support of a “basic access” broadband lane for the public. But at 1.25 Mb/s, it’s insufficient to offer the public meaningful access to the emerging world of digital communications. We also believe that their suggestion that the public lane be re-evaluated every four years is inadequate. It’s likely whatever is originally recommended will become frozen in time, especially as the Bells and cable industry work their political magic in D.C. The public deserves an open lane where full-motion video and other multi-media content can be readily received—that would be at least 3Mb/s. Any principle should call for regular, annual broadband speed “check-ups.” This way the public lane doesn’t become a one-way street.

Annenberg’s principles also failed to make clear that the public lane has to have instant access into TV’s (IPTV) and mobile devices. Our digital media monopolists will use their last mile clout to transform these platforms into privatized playgrounds. We have to make sure that all service providers make it simple for users to get the digital content of their choice, and not use their control over portals and interfaces to discriminate. Annenberg would permit cable and phone companies to do whatever they pleased beyond the public lane, including “free to determine all service parameters, including performance, pricing, and the prioritization of 3rd party traffic.” As the Wizard of Oz said to Dorothy and Co., “Not so fast.” Yet to be determined is a range of content essential for the lifeblood of our Republic–and that should be free from any gatekeeper. That might be electoral content, public safety information, news/journalistic services, educational programming, and beyond. We don’t want to force such material only onto the public lane. The future of the broadband Internet requires an intensive public debate, including exposing the plans of the telephone/cable/ and other media giants to turn the digital medium into a data-collecting, ad-intensive, tollbooth. Annenberg’s principles simply won’t get us there. I think—as they say in LA—they should be sent back to the writer’s room.

PS: We do think highly of Annenberg’s Norman Lear Center—funded by the long-time show-biz industry legend. Prof. Marty Kaplan has done good work there. Unfortunately, academic efforts such as Kaplan’s are all too rare as universities seek large sums of cash from communications companies.

Memo to AT&T: The Debate Over the Internet’s Future is Not Just “About Movies”

In a revealing comment last week, AT&T lobbyist honcho Jim Cicconi told journalists that the battle over network neutrality was “all about movies.” That AT&T would see it that way is understandable, since their “vision” for the future of the Internet is basically a souped-up version of pay television (with endless embedded “rich media” interactive ads). The Bells and the cable industry want to control the pipeline into our computerized devices so they can reap the profits from such downloads. They believe that the proponents of network neutrality only want to also provide the public with video programming, including films. Reflecting their narrow view of our broadband futures, it was reported that AT&T and Verizon would be happy to offer others access if they receive enough bags of dough. CNet’s Marguerite Reardon wrote that the two Bells “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 have a good experience accessing their content.”

In other words, get ready for a multi-tiered, metered and toll-boothed Internet. Big companies with big bucks in the fast and direct lane. Everyone else—sorry, you’re stuck on the Jersey Infopike.

But, of course, the real issue is whether the U.S. will have a democratic digital media system. We need an open pipeline not for Hollywood films, but for the never-ending bandwidth intensive content that will be an important part of our lives. From advocacy videos to streaming media about art; from broadband community health wiki’s to new public affairs channels owned by persons of color—our broadband future will be diverse. But we must ensure that everyone has fair entry into the PC, the IPTV, and even mobile devices. We need a robust public lane for all, with guarantees that everyone can have ready access to content. The debate over network neutrality isn’t about whether the Cable and Bell giants will block website access. It’s really over whether Americans will be treated fairly—so they can enjoy the bounty of content that can help enrich their families, communities and our democracy.
PS: Ironically, when lobbyist Cicconi represented the old AT&T (in 2001) he called on Congress to support safeguards that would require his boss today (the former SBC) and other Bells to operate open broadband networks. I suppose who ever pays the lobbyists piper gets to call the tune of the day.

Lobbying Frenzy over our Broadband/Media Future

The National Journal has published a list of media and communications-related lobbying registrations from July ’05 to March 16, 2006. It’s a useful reminder that hundreds of millions at least are being spent to buy favorable telecommunications legislation (or to prevent any real safeguards such as net neutrality that would open up monopolies to diversity and competition). Rupert Murdoch’s DirecTV satellite service has hired Greenberg Traurig to work on “media mergers.” Murdoch’s News Corp is also using Park Strategies Washington Group. The NAB has Venn Strategies. Microsoft is using the Stanton Park Group. Comcast is throwing its captive subscribers money around by hiring a bevy of firms: Arent Fox, Buchanan Ingersoll, Velasquez & Lausell (a firm specializing in “minority” outreach), the Nickles Group, and Plaster & Associates. But since Comcast wants to ensure it can have an unfettered “quadruple play”–voice, video, data, and wireless–perhaps it makes sense it has hired so many firms.
This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Our Congress is bought and sold like pork bellies. But the list is a useful reminder of the corrupt nature of communications policy-making in the U.S. The corporate media’s money and power distorts the debate–so there really isn’t any serious discussion about policies to protect and serve the average American.

mp3 1053 mltrmp3 1927 louisiana1611 mp3 kjvmp3 11th hournight 0ne mp3107 1fm mp3mp3 tas ne as 16hzdeadsy deadsy 192kbps 1997 mp3 Map

Tropos Opposes Net Neutrality; Links with Company that Supports Tiered Internet

Tropos is a company known for its wireless networking technology. Its products are used in many wi-fi deployments. In an example of a self-serving and wrong-thinking display, Tropos president and CEO Ron Sege came out today against a network neutrality safeguard. Sege suggested that we should allow the cable and phone giants to offer “advanced, prioritized services.” The trade-off he proposed would be for Congress to pass legislation creating more opportunities for municipal and other forms of wireless. He might have just asked them to pass the “Tropos Big Bottom Line Act of 2006” instead. Sege’s proposal would do little to ensure that the U.S. has a democratic and diverse broadband communications environment.

Tropos’s anti-net neutrality stance suggests they don’t want to anger powerful communications industry players, such as AT&T. It also appears that Tropos supports a world where “prioritized services” come to wireless. The company announced a deal this week with Allot Communications for its “NetEnforcer” product. “NetEnforcer” is just one of the score of products that enable broadband operators to know what’s in every packet. It’s a technology at the core of plans to turn the broadband Internet into a virtual tollbooth for both users and content providers.

Washington Post: Internet for Us, Not for You

Last Monday’s Washington Post editorial against a “network neutrality” policy illustrates one of the problems when media outlets have far-ranging business interests elsewhere. They usually fail to acknowledge and clearly explain their numerous conflicts of interests—conflicts that may have shaped their editorial position.

In dismissing the call for an open and non-discriminatory broadband Internet as merely the concerns of those interested in a “democratic utopia,” the 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.