AT&T’s Project

On the heels of the defeat yesterday in the House Telecom and Internet Subcommittee (23-8) that would have helped ensure the Internet remain an open and non-discriminatory highway, it may be useful to look more closely at AT&T’s broadband plans. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other giants were the victors in yesterday’s defeat of the Markey “network neutrality” amendment. A number of Democrats joined with the GOP committee majority to kill off the open Internet safeguard. Just take a peak, by the way, at the end of this post to see how much cable and telecom money has been taken by some of the folks who supported the Telco/cable agenda yesterday.

But to the point about how AT&T and others are about to do the U.S. Internet great harm. AT&T (then SBC) laid out its digital vision in a September 14, 2005 document to the FCC as part of a proceeding on how “IP-Enabled Services” should be governed (“IP” meaning Internet Protocol, the basic communications structure of the Internet and many digital networks). Not surprisingly, AT&T told the FCC (on page 3) that there should be no public policies governing its “Project Lightspeed” service because it has a “architecture similar to the architecture used by customers to access the Internet.” AT&T then went on to say that its “switched, point to point, IP networks are purposefully designed and ultimately capable of allowing customers to access a wide variety of video and other content on a “on-demand basis.” The service will enable users to obtain “Internet-sourced data” and also gain access to “voice, video and data services.” (see p. 20).

But a few pages later in the 35-page document, AT&T reveals what is an outrageous policy “bait and switch” canard. While it says (on p. 24) that its “purpose in deploying this point-to-point two way network is to provide subscribers with maximum flexibility in customizing what they see and when they see it,” they also say (my bold) that “the ultimate breadth and scope of such on-demand capabilities will be a function of a number of factors, including arrangements with content owners and other programming vendors…”

In another words, the so-called Internet that AT&T will deliver us will be based on who can pay them the most money to have their content included in Lightspeed’s (video) service. AT&T is saying to the FCC and Congress: `don’t require us to have any policy safeguards, because we’re the Internet. Don’t “regulate” the Internet.’ But at the same time, AT&T is making clear (through a document only read by a few lawyers) that it doesn’t intend to give us the Internet at all—just a very profitable closed system where it can charge users and content providers ever-escalating fees. For more, read the “The Impact and Legal Propriety of Applying Cable Franchise Regulation to IP-Enabled Video Services.” [Filed by SBC. WC Docket No. 04-36, September 14, 2005].

PS: Follow the Telco-cable money to the House Telecom Subcommittee. Just look at who is contributing to Subcommittee chairman Upton; Rep. Stearns; Rep.Gonzelaz; and Rep. Wynn.

56 school loansagriculture equipment loansloans 95 equitygaranteed loan 100 homehour auto loan 2450,000 loansabout loans paydaynon 100 owner loans Map

The White House and FCC Connection: New Giveaway to Big Media

The Bush Administration and the U.S. newspaper, broadcasting and telecommunications industry are now involved in subtle conversations/negotiations about media ownership policies that will likely have an impact on journalism. The newspaper and broadcast lobby wants the Administration’s help to over-turn what’s left of the media ownership safeguards. This week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a meeting of the powerful newspaper publishers lobby, that he—like his predecessor Michael Powell—was ready to hand them their key political objective: the scuttling of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule. That policy has helped ensure that one company in a community couldn’t simultaneously operate the two most important sources of information: TV channels and the daily paper. The rule has also protected newspapers from being swept up into ratings-driven/show-biz focused TV industry empires. If the cross-ownership rule is axed, expect even less serious print reporting and more tabloid/infotainment TV-business models for dailies.

Mr. Martin clearly doesn’t have the facts with what’s causing the crisis in U.S. journalism today. Nor can we expect either Martin or his Commission to actually honestly investigate what is happening with journalism. His speech to the publishers was lifted from their lobbying playbook, including the absurd notion that allowing one company to operate several TV stations and the daily paper can bring “a significant increase in the production of local news and current affairs…” Media consolidation and cost-cutting to please Wall Street has led to this crisis. Additional consolidation will further weaken the last vehicle currently capable of sustained and meaningful serious journalism: the daily newspaper (we believe it’s too early to say whether online journalism will evolve into a permanent robust alternative in the near term.)

In another example of Martin (and the GOP) currying favor with big media, the chairman published an op-ed in the Financial Times that declared once again his support for the Telco/cable monopolies stance that they should be able to fully control the future of the high-speed Internet in the U.S.

Martin’s zealous advocacy for the telephone, cable, broadcast, and newspaper industry certainly reflects the view of the Bush White House. The chairman’s wife, Catherine Martin, is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy and Planning (before that she was key aide to Vice President Cheney; prior to her White House position she was an aide to then Texas AG John Cornyn (now a U.S. Senator). We have a difficult time believing that whatever Kevin Martin is doing has not been vetted by the White House (just as the Clinton Administration did with its FCC agenda).

But as we proceed into the 2006 election, it will be interesting to look at how both the newspaper and broadcast TV news operations treat the Bush agenda. Will it be—as it was during the run up to the war in Iraq—a subtle quid pro quo: you waive the rules and we’ll waive the flag?

PS: Here’s the link that will take you to the great speech given by FCC Commissioner Copps at the Freedom to Connect conference on Tuesday.

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.