Category: broadband

NSA, the FCC and White House Martin’s, and Sen. Stevens: Beyond Cover-up

It’s not surprising that FCC chair Kevin Martin refused to investigate how the phone companies he oversees have turned over our personal records to the National Security Agency. Martin—who is supposed to be running a so-called “independent agency”—said he was obeying “the representations” of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte and NSA chief Keith Alexander. In a letter to Rep. Ed Markey (who has been doing a terrific job all around on communications issues), Kevin Martin said that the DNI and NSA had warned him that such a study would require the FCC to examine “highly sensitive classified information.” Kevin Martin, of course, is part of the Bush White House conservative cabal that is behind the violation of all our privacy. Martin’s wife Catherine is an assistant to President Bush. Before that, she was an assistant to Vice President Cheney. Her relationships with Texas allies of Pres. Bush go back a number of years as well.

Meanwhile, Senate Commerce Committee chair Ted Stevens, who termed the call for an FCC investigation “misguided,” revealed once again how out of touch he is. Stevens is quoted in Communications Daily (May 24, 2006) saying that he had been briefed on the NSA phone record collection effort. The newsletter reports that Stevens “believed the information the companies gave the NSA was equivalent to creating a database of the names and phone numbers in a phone book.” And Stevens thinks that fine! Can’t wait until he helps wreck U.S. broadband/digital media with his forthcoming bill.

Meanwhile, Kevin Martin should be asked to resign. He isn’t running an independent agency; it’s now just a creature of the defense intelligence establishment

treo 300 ringtoneagcode aan tramadolcd buner mp3 acusticatramadol wetrack acid indigestion ittip gambling 123haunted gambling 5×5 house arcade machine75 am meter mp3 radioderrer suisse adam credit Map

U.S. Broadband and the Public Interest: A Deafening Silence? Now is the Time to Raise the Stakes

As the Senate considers legislation that could set the framework for U.S. digital communications for years to come, we are disappointed about the narrowness of the debate. Network neutrality, while vitally important, should not be the “end-all” in terms of addressing how the public interest must be served in the emerging digital era. Public interest groups and others should be pressing members of Congress and other allies to address how, for example, broadband communications can generate financial and other resources for Americans trapped in poverty. We should be asking now how phone and cable high-speed systems can be used to improve public education. Where are the calls for policies that would break open the lock that cable, phone, and broadcast companies will still have over digital television services? The time is also ripe to address campaign reform in the era of targeted digital advertising (where big money will still largely determine one’s political reach). Privacy, including protections from both government and commercial surveillance, should also be on the agenda.

Two weeks ago, NY State Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer decried the “lack of vision and investment” when he released a “universal broadband access” plan for New York. Spitzer was referring to his state. But we believe there is overall a “lack of vision” coming from those who care about the future of the country. Everyone who knows digital media recognizes that it will be one of the most powerful forces shaping our society. We will be defined as a culture by what we do with the ubiquitous, interactive, personalized, and virtual system that is about to unfold.

Network neutrality has justly generated a tremendous response—thanks to the good folks at Free Press, Common Cause and many others. But it is the `no-brainer’ of broadband politics. Stopping a Bell/cable takeover of the Internet is clearly required. But so are policies that ensure that today’s network neutrality proponents—such as Microsoft, Yahoo! and Goggle—aren’t just allowed to privately prosper. They and the phone and cable companies ultimately share the same business model—a broadband system where consumerism plays the dominant role in our lives. We must demand more than just an Internet that can deliver interactive ads.

Once legislation passes, our U.S. broadband system will quickly evolve. Market structures will be created. It will be harder to make changes. We understand that with a heavily business captured Administration, Congress, and FCC, a public interest agenda would be impossible to get. But it would set the stage for what should be raging and passionate action in the years to come to create a digital media system that nurtures free speech, civic participation, and social justice. With Senate Commerce Co-chair Daniel Inouye now in support of net neutrality and greater community control, groups may have an ally to begin such a call.

clips dbz pornporn buu majin dbzpornos dbzpornography dc firstddd stars pornstar gay dead pornactors dead pornstyles dead porn Map

Verizon’s “Community Studio”—Civil Rights Digital Tokenism?

Last week’s announcement of a “new pilot program” from Verizon’s FIOS digital TV service that it will offer on-demand “public interest and civil rights content” needs to be seen in the context of U.S. media history. It’s not surprising that as Verizon and the other phone companies lobby to change U.S. media law—including sweeping away the open and non-discriminatory nature of the Internet in the U.S.—they would make such tentative promises (notice the word “pilot” in its release). Call us cynical. But we can’t really believe that the phone giant’s announcement, which “emerged in discussions between Verizon and more than 35 civil rights leaders” wasn’t timed to undermine the growing public opposition to its plans for a privatized and `command and controlled’ digital communications system. After all, Congress is about to vote—as early as next week—on new national broadband media communications laws.

As we all know, at each point in the 20th Century as a new media technology emerged, corporate interests made many public interest promises. But once the industry had successfully won its political agenda (having disarmed or overwhelmed critics), such commitments were ignored. Commercial broadcasters back in 1934 promised that radio would be a “classroom of the air,” among many other public interest services. Broadcasters were able to split the educational community and win a 1934 Communications Act without any specific public interest mandates. Of course, what Verizon is doing now is lifted entirely from the cable TV industry political playbook. Cable was going to be—its leaders promised back in the 1970’s—a “community communications” service. There were going to be many channels for all, reflecting the nation’s diversity, at the local and national level. Eventually, as we know, cable broke those promises and used its political power (and a conflicted opposition, such as today) to make certain (via the 1984 Cable Act) that it would be able to focus its resources on national, commercial programming. (There were many remarkable and dedicated civil rights activists who fought to make cable truly diverse, including Charles Tate).

We can understand the frustration many groups have with cable TV. After all, the two leading African American channels are either owned or controlled by conglomerates (Viacom runs BET; TV One is a creature of Comcast). Many Spanish-language channels are also owned by giants or major media investors (GE/NBC/Universal runs Telemundo; Univision is run by A. Jerrold Perenchio and gets much of its programming from Latin America).

The Time to Ensure a Diverse Programming Landscape is Now

The stark lack of ownership by persons of color of programming content must be rectified in the emerging digital era. New local and national programming services should emerge that offer a range of meaningful and truly diverse content—including news, public affairs, and culture. In order to ensure this, such programming needs to be within the foundation of the new telephone company deliver system.

That will take a serious and significant long-time commitment in terms of funding and distribution support. Instead of a “pilot” program offering up a rotating monthly assortment of content from 35 groups, our telephone giants should be expected to `pony’ up and do something significant in terms of programming diversity. Otherwise, African-American, Latino/Hispanic and many others will primarily be addressed as consumers—not as citizens and community members (see the Cable Advertising Bureau site for how the African-American and Latino communities are viewed as a marketing bonanza). [Since Verizon makes, according to the same release announcing the “pilot,” some $90 billion in operating revenues, we think they could afford more than a tentative, VOD plan].

There is, of course, a perversity with Verizon calling its new venture “Community Studio.” Verizon, AT&T, Qwest and others are about to destroy much of “community” media, as they get Congress to kill off community oversight of cable/phone digital media (the Barton-Rush bill, for example). Since both the phone and cable industry also seek to permanently eliminate the Internet’s non-discrimination safeguard, online community voices will likely face new obstacles as well.

Behind Verizon’s negotiations with the groups, we understand, was Kathryn C. Brown, a Public Policy VP. Ms. Brown was a former chief of staff to Clinton-era FCC head William Kennard. It was Ms. Brown who replied, when asked to support public interest policies for broadcast digital TV, to tell her what the “low-hanging fruit” was on the issue (meaning some meaningless quid pro quo). Also working with Ms. Brown, we were told, was B. Keith Fulton, head of Verizon’s “Strategic Alliance Group” (“responsible for the company’s outreach to multicultural, senior citizen and disabled organizations”). Mr. Fulton first came to Washington as a National Urban League staffer interested in addressing the digital divide. He was soon scooped up by AOL Time Warner (its foundation) and began his career helping the communications lobby.

Finally, it’s worth noting that on the same day Verizon announced its civil rights and new media pilot, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists blasted the Bush Administration for its plans to not investigate the sorry state of minority broadcast ownership. The last federal report, in 2000, showed that people of color owned less than 3.8% of all broadcast stations. We wonder what a study will find—if one is done a few years from now—of how much major digital content will be truly diversely owned?

Telco/Cable TV lobbying Blitz Costing Nearly $1 Mil Per Week in DC Market/ Big Bucks Spent to Pave Way for Broadband Monopolies

Everyone has seen the TV ads from both the phone and cable lobby urging Congress to support their plans to control the future of the broadband Internet in the U.S. Companies such as Qwest, Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T want to be broadband barons—with all other content providers and users reduced to serving as merely consuming digital surfs.

How much is the PR blitz costing? Well, intrepid media consultant Gary Arlen of Arlen Communications has done the math. “About 975K is being spent on Washington-area media buying,” he told us. That sum is mostly for local broadcast TV expenditures. According to Mr. Arlen, the U.S. Telecom Association has been spending $250 K/week (and so far has run-up a six-week $1.5 million ad tab). AT&T is forking out $600K per week (for its “Choice” campaign). TV4US, a telco “Astroturf” group, is spending $75k per week for at least a four-week air time buy. The NCTA, meanwhile, has gone through at least $ 1 million nationally in a year, spending 50K a week in the DC market as Congress meets. [Arlen is one of the most insightful people working in the media biz—and keeps an eagle-like eye on where the business is heading.]

Of course, once Rep. Joe Barton and Sen. Ted Stevens pass legislation giving control over broadband to the country’s cable and phone giants, they will be able to give themselves preferred high-speed interactive video treatment at rock-bottom (free!) rates.

Question: With next week’s House floor vote on Barton-Rush—will Microsoft, Yahoo!, Amazon, Google, eBay, and IAC spend the necessary dough to sound the alarm?

movies home wifessex movies free hardcoresex movie toonfree movie adultsex free movies animefree femdom moviesmovie bestialityvega mindy movie Map

dildo sex movies freecdgirls moviemovies sample sex freemovies piss freelesbian long movieslesbian love movieslicking sweet sapphic moviesmovies male gay porn Map

Sen. Stevens’ Broadband Bill: Building A Digital Bridge to Nowhere

What do you say about a supposed update of the nation’s basic communications laws in the digital era that first starts off discussing low cost calls to home for the armed forces fighting a “war on terrorism.” Or that the 135-page draft released this week is principally about an old technology: TV. What it says is that the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee—and his legion of lobbyist’ allies– can’t be trusted to oversee our nation’s digital future. Let’s remember—Senator Stevens supported the last major media industry give-away: the disastrous and lobbyist written 1996 Telecommunications Act.

His proposed new law doesn’t address how to harness the power of broadband communications to foster civic discourse, democratic participation, or even the arts. Sen. Steven’s bill is primarily about permitting the Bell and cable companies to reap enormous profits from selling captive consumers interactive video services. Under the bill, broadband transmission speeds are set absurdly low (anywhere from 200 kbs to 3mbs per second)—at a time when the rest of the industrialized world offers users blazing fast distribution. Instead of boldly declaring that every U.S. resident should have affordable broadband access [which will soon be a necessity], Stevens asks the Census Bureau to add an “American Community Survey Residential Internet Question” that will ask “what technology…households use to access the Internet from home.” It will take years with such an effort to develop a serious approach to equitable Internet access. In another blow to low-income Americans, the proposed law effectively fails to prevent Bell Co. network redlining. Stevens creates a complaint procedure at the FCC that will ensure discriminated consumers won’t be served for many years.

This legislation turns over the Internet to the cable and phone lobby. It does nothing on network neutrality, save a meaningless study by the toothless and in-the-industry-pocket FCC. Here we can see Stevens and Co.’s close ties with AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, etc. K-Street crowd. Is it a coincidence—or just a bad joke—that network neutrality is only mentioned in a “Broadband Deployment” bill at the very end of the draft (right after the section of the bill attacking video porn). The bill also breaks the ability of local government to ensure residents reap the benefits of broadband networks (it guts franchising). A more thoughtful piece of legislation would have ensured some serious local oversight and access to broadband capacity, while simultaneously requiring an open network.

But this bill is more about video programming and sorting out the various show-biz industry political wish lists than a forward-thinking, democratically-inspired piece of legislation. It’s time that Sen. Inouye, the so-called co-chair of the Commerce Committee, do a shout-out for the Internet and the public interest in the broadband era (it will help make up for his yea on the 96 Act). We all need to help him listen.

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.