Category: media industry lobbying

TV Lobby Supports Barton-Rush Cable Plan/ Deals between AT&T/Verizon and Stations Reflect Net Neutrality Concerns

Don’t expect much coverage by local TV station news departments on the plan to kill-off community franchising of cable. The powerful National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) supports AT&T and Verizon’s quest to dump local cable oversight. That’s because the telco’s are doling out money and probably special broadband favors to both stations and the networks. The phone companies desperately need programming; the broadcast industry wants cash. Last month, Verizon announced a deal with CBS that likely gave the network lots of money for its programming and a way it “can use the bandwidth and flexibility of [Verizon’s FIOS] fiber network to reach their customers in innovative ways.”

We think lawmakers should demand to see what the terms of such deals are—especially as the debate over “network neutrality” moves to the House floor and the Senate. If a CBS is now getting preferential treatment with Verizon’s broadband network—such as free local caching, faster transmission speeds, and prominent portal placement—the public deserves to know. The behind closed-doors negotiations going on between the networks, stations and the telephone lobby also underscores why we need network neutrality. Broadcasters—still the leading provider of news in the U.S.—will have deep economic and political ties to the two dominant providers of broadband. In another words, they are unlikely to report negatively on their financial benefactors and partners. We need to ensure a U.S. broadband world where serious news can be readily distributed—and that includes reporting on the U.S. broadband monopoly.

Do Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon and Barry Diller (IAC) Know Any Republicans? Upcoming House Floor Vote will Reveal Whether They Have any Bi-Partisan DC Clout

As the COPE (Barton-Rush) anti-Internet bill moves to the House floor for a critical vote, it’s time to ask: can these six giant technology/e-commerce companies deliver a handful of GOP votes? With the Democrats now more likely to support a network neutrality amendment, all it would take to pass would be relatively few Republican members. I can’t believe that the CEO’s of these companies (and their board members) can’t contact what must be a never-ending chain of powerful GOP contacts who owe them big time: their bankers, M&A firms, lawyers, VC’s, and fellow country club members. Hello—Jeff Bezos, Meg Whitman, Eric Schmidt, Barry Diller, Steve Ballmer, and Terry Semel. You have contacts and now’s the time to use them (or perhaps ask to borrow a few names from Intel–now that they have joined in the call for network neutrality).
The little Free Press-inspired “Save the internet.org” group has put your DC lobbying efforts to shame. Does the network neutrality “big six” really want to deliver or not? We—and hope everyone else—will be looking closely at the House floor vote. If these six can’t really try to deliver—they are either incompetent politically or are taking a purposeful dive.

mp3 43 burntmp3 accuface format4400 mp3 salvationaccursed seal mp345 afroman colt mp3mp3 tom accused461 mp3 ocean boulevardtrouble mp3 accute Map

As Fight Against Telco/Cable Net Monopoly Looms for House Floor, the Barton-Rush Bill Should Be Scuttled. More “Scholars” with Undisclosed Financial Connections Back the Telco/Cable PR campaign

Proponents of network neutrality will engage in hand-to-hand political combat next week, as the Barton-Rush broadbanditry bill comes to a vote on the House floor. Led by Rep. Ed Markey, the Democrats have apparently awakened from their slumber on network neutrality. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi now plans to co-sponsor the Markey amendment. Ms. Pelosi, Rep. Boucher and others are seeking a ruling to bring the neutrality amendment for a vote. It is also reported that the Democrats will offer an amendment on what is called “build-out.” This would help redress somewhat the plans of AT&T and Verizon to engage in economic redlining; these giants only desire to initially serve the most affluent customers (leaving low-income and others behind).

A sharp, very public, debate over network neutrality is greatly needed. That’s why we hope everyone will also speak out by sending word to Congress on where you stand on the issue (see SavetheInternet.org). Members of Congress need to make it clear. Are they for the handful of cable and phone giants who are engaged in a digital power grab of the Internet in the U.S.? Or will they side with Internet users and the general public?

But the entire Barton-Rush “Telco/Cable Broadband Monopoly Enrichment Act of 2006” has been written to ultimately benefit a few special interests. It’s not really a forward thinking broadband bill. It does nothing to address equitable access by the poor and low income Americans to the Internet; fails to protect online privacy; and undermines local accountability. Yesterday, we covered some of these issues for The Nation and Alternet.

Finally, it appears every day some other “prominent” academic or scholar comes to the aid of the Bells or cable lobby. Yesterday, it was Dr. John Rutledge, a self-described “leading free-market economist” in the U.S. Rutledge dismissed network neutrality as a “contrived issue.” What is contrived is certainly the failure of Dr. Rutledge in his press release to identify the political and financial links he has to the cable and phone lobby. Dr. Rutledge is on the board of the telco/cable backed Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute. The failure of Dr. Rutledge to disclose in his pro Bell/cable release these and other commercial ties illustrates why Congress should pass a “Fess Up, Academics and Nonprofits on the Corporate Dole” consumer protection act.

Google, Microsoft, Amazon et al. Good First Start, But Much More is Needed.

“Don’t Mess With the Net.com,” representing many of the commercial Internet companies and other groups, just launched ads in Roll Call and The Hill, two newspapers targeted to Capital Hill. The ads and website are funded by Amazon, eBay, Google, IAC (Barry Diller), Microsoft, and Yahoo!

But this well-heeled “Network Neutrality Coalition” is spending pennies, when they should be pulling out all the stops. The public deserves to know what’s at stake with our broadband future in the U.S—now! The phone and cable industries are buying TV and radio time, using online marketing at major websites (such as NYT.com) and even renting ad space on buses. This should not be just an inside the Beltway game. If Microsoft, Google and the other coalition CEOs are really as concerned about network neutrality as cited yesterday in their testimony, they will `up the ante.’ Or are they really ambivalent about helping to inform the American public about what is at stake—and why safeguards are needed to ensure a more democratic media future.

USTA: More Lies Faster: Repetitive Promise Syndrome…And Microsoft Says it will do better Net Neutrality Fight

The United States Telecom Association (USTA), the lobbying arms for AT&T (SBC) and Verizon, is running a blitz of misleading ads—online and on T.V. As Congress prepares to debate the “Save our Internet” issue this week, USTA is scrambling to amplify its message: “Let our members—AT&T and Verizon—control the Internet in the U.S.” Or, as AT&T honcho Ed Whitacre now infamously said, the U.S. Internet should operate as the company’s private “pipes.”

One of USTA’s many front-group lobbying efforts is something it calls “The Future…Faster.” Supposedly a “coalition,” Faster is nothing more than a collection of past promises broken. But it’s a useful reminder about how USTA and its members are never to be trusted. On its website, one can click on a number of categories to learn about how the Bell broadband agenda will help America, and why one should disregard the call for consumer and public interest safeguards. But what’s striking about Faster is that the Telcos are now making the exact same phony promises and claims said to Congress and the public more than ten years ago—to help them win favorable language in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. (So, hey, all you members of Congress who have taken their dough. You better do a fact-check on what the USTA now purports will be a potential public benefit. You are about to buy the digital Brooklyn Bridge for at least the second time).

Faster says supporting its agenda will give “Bring Medical Solutions to All Americans;” that it will “Bring the World of Knowledge to Schools and Educators;” and “More Choice… for Consumers.” These are the exact promises made by USTA, NCTA, and both the GOP and Democratic leadership to the country back in 1996. For example, back in 1994 and testifying before Congress, a Bell witness promised that the country would have a broadband network that would “spur the development of new interactive consumer services in education, entertainment, government, and health care.”

They didn’t deliver then and they don’t intend to do so now. We all know what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et al really want: to help their tired old media monopoly business model gain a faster hold over the broadband digital marketplace. That’s the reality. And if we permit that to happen the “Reality” will be harmful to consumers, seniors, educators and everyone else who desires a America that reflects our highest aspirations as a culture. Not some dumbed-down, meter always running, and `we’re data collecting on you,’ AT&T/Verizon/USTA Internet.

PS:
By the way, we received a call yesterday from Microsoft. They promised that the company would now be mobilizing more resources to get Congress to pass network neutrality legislation.

Will Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the others Really Fight for Net Neutrality?

Word from sources in Congress say that the major companies arguing for network neutrality have failed so far to demonstrate they are seriously committed to seeing legislation passed. While the CEO’s from the Bell companies, we were told, glad-handed members of Congress, our leading online companies have been largely MIA. Here we are talking about some of the most powerful online companies, who reach tens of millions daily. Imagine if on its home pages Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft’s MSN urged users to take action and asked them to save the Internet. Congress would be overwhelmed with angry emails and letters. The Bell/cable industry “grass-tops” faux campaign would be seen as a very minor, paid-for, outcry.

But we wonder whether Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! really want to see network neutrality legislation? They must have serious misgivings, since they have done such an incompetent and half-hearted lobbying effort so far. Certainly they are thinking about the downsides of legislation. For today’s call for network neutrality could (and should) lead to other legislative safeguards, such as protecting privacy online. Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo! fear that such privacy safeguards would threaten their interactive advertising/data collection digital golden gooses.

Yahoo! and Microsoft also have deals with many of the phone and cable companies. They and other online giants will need favorable access to their broadband lines, network neutrality or not. Perhaps it’s concern over their business relationships that have contributed to their political timidity.

So we ask. Will Google, Yahoo!, Amazon and the others make a serious stand? Did the 27-4 vote in the House Telecom Subcommittee approving the Barton-Rush broadband giveaway serve as a wake-up call? Will we see Bill Gates, Terry Semel, Larry Page/Serge Brin, Jeff Bezos and others make the rounds in D.C.? Will these mega companies unleash a torrent of ads urging Americans to help them keep the Internet an open space? Or will they silently side with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and a few others that want to create a new form of digital divide: those that control the pipes vs. everyone else.

accrediting institutions theologica american of associationtelco alabama credit alabama unionsouth credit federal bend union aaa2007 kentucky $800 tax creditlimitation income credit adoptionutah american credit west union inamericans fair credit actloans check $5000 credit without Map

The Propaganda Channel and the Net Neutrality Debate

If you haven’t seen the “Pentagon Channel” produced by the Department of Defense, you’re missing a classic—and outrageous–propaganda effort aimed for U.S. audiences. This 24/7 “video news” network, as it calls itself, outshines even Fox News in its fealty to the official U.S. government line about Iraq. But since one of the channel’s star “talents” is Don Rumsfeld himself, it’s not surprising. What is shocking is that the U.S. is producing a channel for domestic use that is clearly propaganda—and should be taken off the many U.S. cable systems and satellite services that carry it.

With a program line-up that includes the daily “Freedom Journal Iraq” and
“Around the Services” (from the Pentagon “NewsCenter-daily…military news from top Defense officials”) to “Inside Afghanistan,” and the “Stallion Report” ( “a bi-weekly news program from Mosul, Iraq”), the Pentagon Channel airs the official view. We are all fighting for “freedom.” We are winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraq people, says one reporter for “Freedom Journal Iraq.” Scenes of “hunting bad guys,” and “missions of good will” are shown (including pictures of renovated schools displaying posters of Disney characters).

Major cable, satellite and telephone companies have given the U.S. government channel free carriage, including Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, Cox, and Echostar. The channel reaches about 12 million cable and satellite viewers; it’s also distributed in the U.S. and around the world on military bases. The channel is working to expand its distribution, including going after space reserved for public access channels (which were created to promote free speech—not governmental PR). This week the channel launched itself as a video and audio podcast via the Internet. Secretary of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared that he was “…pleased that we are using video casting and other increasingly important technologies to reach our global audience…”

The Voice of America is prohibited from airing its service in the U.S. The Pentagon Channel should also be similarly banned. We hope the Pentagon Channel will be scrutinized by more media critics and policymakers. Having a taxpayer-backed channel that promotes itself as “news” when it’s really about pushing an Administration’s political agenda should clearly be unacceptable policy.

But—now for the connection with network neutrality. In a world where the big cable and phone companies can dominate the U.S. broadband and TV market—expect more favorable treatment for such official government PR efforts. Whether it’s giving the Department of Defense a helping hand with its propaganda channel or turning over to the NSA and other agencies our personal communications—the big cable/telco broadband monopoly will strive to please officials. That’s where the quid pro quo deal making—let’s us control the network and we will treat you `right,’ is likely to occur. You can be sure that when Ed Whitacre of AT&T charges a Google for using what it considers its “pipes,” it will give the official view–such as the Pentagon Channel–a free, high-speed broadband ride.

To see if your cable service carries the channel, click here. It’s also streamed online.

Caspian×?Ts Net Neutral Proposal

The networking technology company Caspian has offered a ×??Fair Use Policy Framework×?? paper that claims to meaningfully address the current debate over the future of the U.S. broadband Internet. It has a mouthful of a subtitle: ×??A Nondiscriminatory and Noninvasive Approach to Managing Internet Traffic in Full Compliance with U.S. Law and Federal Communications Commission Policy.×?? The ×??abridged×?? version is available on its website (and is the one discussed below). A press release on the report is available.
On the one hand, we applaud the company×?Ts participation in what should be a more contested and public debate over our broadband future. But they show a lack of real understanding about why this issue is so important. Caspian dismisses the current discussion about how the Net should be governed as no more than heated rhetorical posturing. The authors of the paper should have understood that we are arguing about more than which company or industry will come out on top. Whatever is decided about so-called network neutrality will affect the quality of our lives in a democracy that is being fundamentally shaped by digital communications.
First, this is not about ×??maximizing consumer choice,×?? as they put it. It×?Ts about ensuring that digital networks strengthen civic discourse, diversity of expression, and economic opportunity. In another words, the debate is really about the role broadband communications and citizen/public participation in our society. The paper claims that ×??proponents of unlimited network neutrality×?ignore×?that increased Internet usage has resulted in increased congestion.×?? (Not surprisingly, Caspian’s message in the paper is that products such as its ×??media controllers×?? can help ensure more equitable traffic management.) But the paper fails to explore how policies requiring that the cable and telcos add more bandwidth capacity would help address many congestion concerns.

The paper does underscore why public interest groups and many new media companies are alarmed about cable/telco plans for the future of digital distribution. Caspian critiques what it terms their ×??absolutist position for unrestricted managed access×?? by underscoring how AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others can readily impose higher consumer rates, invade our privacy, and block or impede access to online content.

We await the full paper from Caspian. But we urge readers not to readily support the notion of ×??higher-quality,×?? tiered ($) access models for broadband. It will help usher in a new generation of broadband content that potentially discriminates against users and content providers.

PS/Disclosure: Caspian cites some of our writings (and others, such as Rep. Rick Boucher and Common Cause) as examples of ×??sensationalist statements×?? about the net neutrality debate among their footnoted references. The paper also says that net neutral proponents don×?Tt see the need for fair traffic management. We do. But we don×?Tt want the cable/telco private cop patroling the digital beat.

upside down 6cycle mind mp30cean loader mp3mp3 motel 55mp3 aashayein iqbalspeed perfect god 13 mp3mp3 body 75547 glovesbended mp3 knee 0nchain 38 mp3 special lightning Map

Mike McCurry Joins AT&T’s Campaign for a Monopoly Internet

Former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry is now part of an AT&T backed “coalition” working on a huge public interest rip-off. AT&T, as we know, is opposed to an open, competitive, and democratic Internet. Now they have used their clout to get McCurry–named as the coalition “co-chair”– to be a part of their “Hands Off the Internet” front group. AT&T wants to make sure that no “network neutrality” safeguards are enacted by Congress. McCurry’s role is to help snare Democrats over to the wrong-side—that being the position that will hurt everyone but AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and a few others.

Ironically, McCurry’s work on behalf of AT&T will ultimately harm many of the non-profit and public interest clients who work with Grassroots Enterprise and the Public Strategies Group. Among the clients listed at McCurry’s various firms include the ACLU, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Sierra Club (MoveOn.org is listed on Grassroots Enterprise website claiming that the firm’s leadership team played a key role with the group). If McCurry’s “coalition” has its way, there will be a threat to civil liberties as a few control the Internet (hello, ACLU); more targeted ads promoting unhealthy lifestyles targeted to kids (please take note, Tobacco-Free Kids); an explosion of commercialism and consumption that will further wreck the environment (the Sierra Club and other such groups should be outraged); and an Internet where only big bucks will ensure you can sway voters (which should alarm MoveOn and all other groups concerned about the future of the Internet in politics).

When Mr. McCurry comes calling on Members of Congress, they should be forewarned. If McCurry, AT&T and company have their way, our country’s hopes for a more just and informed society will be threatened. Such an outcome may be profitable for a very few, but ultimately will harm the many.

PS: McCurry’s Public Strategies Group has represented SBC (now AT&T) for years, helping them build a more powerful telecom monopoly.

Congress Does a Corrupt ‘96 Telecom Act Re-run

The same `big telecom money buys itself special interest legislation’ that created the 1996 Telecom Act give-away is now in play again. A congressional wrecking crew—under the guise of “updating” our nation’s telecom laws—will do even more damage to our media system. Ten years ago, Congress gave us more consolidation in the cable, broadcast TV/radio, and telecom sectors. It sparked an unprecedented shopping spree where newspapers, TV/radio stations, telephone, and cable companies were bought and sold at dizzying speed. Freed by Congress from any constraint, cable rates soared. We have no policy so Americans can readily receive a diverse array of news and culture beyond the narrow confines of the show-biz, ad-supported media industry. The 96 Act failed to ensure low-income and rural Americans would have residential access to the Internet; nor were there any policies promoting diverse ownership of programming content in cable and satellite networks (esp. by persons of color). Behind closed doors, the GOP and media moguls like Rupert Murdoch, Robert Wright of GE and executives from many companies stuck a private deal that became the 96 Act.

Now, they are doing it again. Taking in huge sums of money from phone and cable companies, Congress is permitting the Internet and new digital networks to fall under greater control of phone and cable monopolies; they are killing off the last vestige of localism—municipal franchising for community communications; permitting wide-spread discrimination against lower-income Americans by allowing phone companies to only serve the most affluent. Congress will also set the stage for even more media consolidation (think phone companies buying TV stations or a broacast network and a Comcast/Google merger), higher rates for all communications services (wired and wireless), and a commercial culture for the U.S. dominated by the most powerful special interests (especially major entertainment and advertising companies).

Everything Congress is about to do is against the public interest. Isn’t time we all said—as we were advised to do by the late Paddy Chayefsky in Network, to scream (and advocate) from the rooftops: we’re mad as hell and we aren’t going to let you wreck our media system anymore!