Category: Yahoo!

We know it’s the rage on the part of the media/ad industry to encourage users/viewers to create their own content. It’s often touted as a technique permitting greater user interaction with commercial media. But however it’s framed, the motive is about deepening the brand and marketing relationships between advertisers and individuals.

Al Gore has been getting praise for his environmental work, including a new film on global warming (“An Inconvenient Truth”). He deserves it, certainly. But Gore’s new Current video channel—which is billed as “dedicated to bringing your voice to television”—contributes to the growing commercial “pollution” of our culture. As a way to get advertising revenue from sponsors, Current is encouraging viewers to create corporate ads. Right now, they are urging folks to help out Toyota, L’Oreal, and Sony, for example. These companies see it as a cheap way to get commercials made and to also obtain “grass-roots feedback” on what people (esp. younger viewers) think about their brands. If Current airs the spot, producer-viewers can earn $1,000 and more.

The growing role that marketing and advertising is playing in our digital culture will promote higher levels of personal consumption, economic inequities and—yes—environmental pollution. Current encourages viewers to create their own editorial content. But Gore and his partners should not be asking viewers/users to support the efforts of advertisers to further extend their relationships and reach. Otherwise, Current will become nothing more than a network-length infomercial for the Fortune 500.

Fearful that there is a growing call for Internet safeguards—especially with yesterday’s kick-off of the Save the Internet coalition—the Bells have mobilized their assorted and paid for cronies to do damage control. Flurries of press releases were issued, by such groups as FreedomWorks, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Phoenix Center and the “Hands off the Internet Coalition.” AT&T and Verizon must be feeling desperate—which is a good sign that the new coalition of Left to Right advocates and leading Internet experts are having a real impact.

But it’s time that everyone recognized that free market self-styled emperor Dick Armey has no—well—let’s just say he could audition for one of those X rated movies. In yesterday’s FreedomWorks release, Armey rants that “Net Neutrality allows the government to run all over basic property rights.” Yet, as a leading legislator, Mr. Armey has called for government intervention to ensure an open, competitive and more democratic media environment.

Four years ago, then House Majority Leader Armey worked to enact federal media diversity rules. Armey’s bill would have required the government to force media companies to divest newspapers or TV stations. In a situation that reflects the concerns of the current network neutrality debate, Armey was livid over the media and political power one media company—Belo—had in his district. (Armey blamed Belo for his son’s electoral loss in a bid to replace him.). Armey’s legislation would have statutorily required Belo to sell one of its prime outlets, such as its Dallas Morning News and WFAA-TV. Preventing such concentration of media control, Armey told the American Journalism Review, was “an important issue. It goes to the strength of our democracy.” Armey’s spokesperson at the time explained that “In America, the press is responsible for informing the public and providing a forum for free debate … In this case, this particular corporation has almost a stranglehold on Mr. Armey’s constituency in Mr. Armey’s district.”

Now that he has to raise money from private interests, such as the phone companies, perhaps Mr. Armey is too busy to recall his recent public outcry for media safeguards to promote freedom of expression. But the anti-open Internet position of FreedomWorks would give such a “stranglehold” over the flow of digital media to its phone company supporters.

Finally, the shrill cry from Bell supporters reminds us that who pays the piper gets them to sing the tune. The National Black Chamber of Commerce issued a release yesterday opposed to an open Internet. They failed to acknowledge that AT&T (SBC), Bell South, and Verizon are financial supporters of the group. The Hands Off Coalition—backed by AT&T—should rename itself in the spirit of truth in advertising: The `It’s AT&T’s Pipes’ Front-Group.

PS. CDD is a member of the Save the Internet group. Kudos to Free Press and company for organizing it.

cumfiesta moviemovies busty dailydans movies porndbz movie brolly clipsdownload maker windows moviedrop sexy dead moviesoftware dvd player movieecho tit valley big movies Map

Susan Crawford correctly points out that the Walt Disney Company/ABC has done an about-face on network neutrality. Back in 2000, for example, Disney was the leading commercial media company fighting the AOL Time Warner merger over the network neutrality issue. Why the change? It’s because Disney and the other TV networks understand that unless they play ball with the cable and telephone industry their futures are threatened.

Don’t be fooled by Disney/ABC’s announcement that it will run a few of their programs online. Disney, CBS, NBC and the others recognize that now, thanks to Michael Powell and Kevin Martin of the FCC, cable and telephone networks control the future of the TV/broadband business. All of TV will be interactive, including advertising. Only by being securely inside the cable/telco pipe can a media company guarantee that it can prosper. That means doing whatever it takes to secure favorable treatment by Comcast, Verizon, and others. That’s why Disney is silent on network neutrality safeguards. They have been told–in so many words–that if they support safeguards their programing will suffer. More importantly, if Disney and the others play “ball” they will get all kinds of financial rewards–including favorable placement for video-on-demand, more money for programming, and likely enhanced digital distrubution.

Why be nice to the cable and telcos in our seemingly open and competitive broadband universe? It’s becase their now monopoly
pipes will be the place that collects the data, tracks the viewer/user/ and targets us with personalized content. It will have the intelligence to know whether we are in the home or are connected via a mobile device.

Content may be king. But the “closed” access model of broadband given to us by the FCC (and to be likely ratified by Congress soon) has also given those that control the conduit a sizeable share of the “throne.” Everyone in show-biz knows that broadband and TV are merging. That’s where the big bucks will be. The phone and cable industry have this market sewn up. Even Mickey Mouse knows to fear a digital monopoly when it sees one.

animal exotic porn sexlocations exotic pornexotic stories pornpornstar exoticporn exotica freeexpansion pornexpert reviews pornporn explicit medicacl video Map

With the lopsided vote against Internet freedom last week in the House Telecom and Internet Subcommittee, we decided to ask the folks at the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) to pull together a list of campaign contributions given to committee members. So here’s a link to an Excel spread sheet [which will download] that will show you the cable/telco contributions to both the full House and Senate Commerce committees. It tracks contributions from just these two industries from the last Congress (108th) to the current 109th. Dates for the 108th are from Jan. 1, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2004. For the 109th, it’s based on CRP’s most recent acquisition of data, downloaded on Mar. 13, 2006 (but doesn’t include contributions for March itself).
Money from cable and telephone companies and their lobbying associations are being spread around like chocolate candies given to kids at Easter/Passover. It’s no wonder–sadly–that the American public can’t expect any broadband legislation which would put their interests above our crass, cash-dispensing, phone and cable monopolies. To find the list of top contributors to your favorite member, just go to CRP. Then look again at your phone and cable bills. You know where the money is going.

movies free sex anallesbian moviesmovies xxxpussy moviesmovies free porn samplemovies amplandporno free moviesfucking movies free Map

$80,000 personal loanloans payday online aceloan 500 auto ficoaba loan auto calculatorameriloan fraudhome loan aames fredmontgomery fha loans alabamaloan access Map

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.

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.

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.

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

Google has hired the DC-lobbying fixer firm Podesta Mattoon. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Google is working there with Joshua Hastert, the son of Speaker Dennis Hastert. Joshua “provides clients with a broad range of policy expertise – from the defense and high-tech sectors to small business, copyright, and entertainment issues,” says his bio on the Podesta site. Google has now joined some of the most powerful media/communications conglomerates and trade associations in the country who also use Podesta Mattoon to advance their narrow special interests. They include Bell South, Clear Channel, GE, the National Association of Broadcasters, Newspaper Association of America, and the United States Telecom Association. Podesta Mattoon also represents the Washington Post Co, among many others.

Google’s use of Podesta Mattoon and its conglomerate clientele suggests that the search and advertising firm will likely end up siding with the interests of the country’s biggest companies. Expect deals behind the scenes, including on network neutrality. By hiring the son of the Speaker, Google has also sent a signal it’s happy to play along with the K Street Project plan and give work to well-placed GOP loyalists. But since Podesta Mattoon also combines the strong Democratic party linkages of its founder Anthony Podesta, Google’s search for one of Washington’s “well-connected” helps their lobbying agenda on both sides of the aisle.

Another revealing skirmish in what can be called the “network neutrality” wars. Comcast is using its power as a government-sanctioned broadband and cable TV monopoly to impose content restrictions on one of the world’s biggest media companies. One should hardly feel sorry for Disney/ABC. But, according to Broadcasting & Cable magazine (“Comcast-Disney Fight Simmers,” 3/20/06), Comcast is using its clout to limit how Disney can distribute their programming “through the Internet, cellphones or other distribution schemes.” If the Bush FCC hadn’t awarded phone and cable conglomerates full control over broadband distribution in the U.S., Disney could probably reject Comcast’s digital squeeze play. But it can’t, especially if wants to maximize its TV and online distribution. This show-biz tiff should serve as a warning. Online content providers smaller than the “Mouse House” will likely face similar strong-arm treatment from cable and large telephone companies as Verizon.