Category: Comcast

David Cohen and Brian Roberts need to be sent to reform school. That’s public interest and media reform, although Comcast’s arrogant behavior regarding bandwidth throttling and seat-grabbing at public hearings suggests that Cohen and Roberts deserve to be sent up the lack of corporate responsibility river. But Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, long a Comcast favorite and Cohen’s former boss, would probably pardon them.

Comcast shareholders should be alarmed. At a time when cable’s future growth has never faced more challenges, the company’s leaders are engaged in a reckless attempt to shore up market share and suppress free speech. Such behavior discredits the company, including its board (Rockefeller Foundation head Judith Rodin serves on the board, btw). Comcast owes the country an apology for its actions. If it engages in a `we’re a big powerful monopoly and can do what we want’ attitude, it will become the poster child of a media company that most users, especially youth, will loath. Shareholders, the press, and advocates need to bring real reform to Comcast, before it becomes the brand we love to hate–and bypass.

movies anal longyard pictures longest moviematrix:reloaded script movieminka moviemovie of breast examwav quotes moviescreen savers moviemovie database script Map

damon gay pornporno dan movies freeporn star dan linnsdan texas pornporn dearmond danafree porn dana hayesdana pix plato pornporn star dana Map

Cable’s 70/70 Rule & the Public Interest: Programming diversity is what should matter

Our friends and colleagues have worked for years to ensure that the monopolistic-run cable television industry be required to operate in a more competitive and–dare I say–democratic manner. So Bravo! to Media Access Project, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and everyone else. But the focus of any FCC rules changes should be on how to ensure real programmatic diversity, including shows and channels owned and managed by women and people of color. If all we get is an a la carte system where one can merely pick and choose from the narrow content choices now offered us, then we will not be making real progress. How one should measure success of any cable TV regulatory change should be on what we see on the screen. That’s more important, in my opinion, than a focus on lowering cable rates (or offering new options for cable consumers to block programs and channels they find undesirable).

So as advocates and others consider policy changes, here’s what I suggest we consider. What rules are required so that there are new, unaffiliated, international, national, and local news channels available on cable systems? How can we foster independent programs and channels owned and operated by African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and other groups? What needs to be done to ensure that five to seven years from now, there’s channels reflecting the rich cultural and artistic experience of the country? And, finally, what rules can be enacted that will aid these new media outlets to become sustainable, cross-platform (online, mobile, TV) services? That will require they have access to the full-functionality of cable–and not be placed in some digital backwater.

Yesterday, the FTC sent out a release announcing its November town meeting on online advertising and privacy. The hearing is in response to the formal complaint my group Center for Digital Democracy and the USPIRG filed last November.

It’s clear that the FTC is fearful of really tackling the privacy and consumer-manipulation problems intrinsic to the online ad field. Behavioral targeting, which we also address in our complaint, is just the tip of the proverbial data collection and target marketing iceberg. Policymakers at the FTC, the Congress, and state A-G’s must do a better job in addressing this problem. Chapter seven of my book covers the topic, along with recommendations. As we noted in our statement yesterday, CDD has given the staff at the FTC a ton of material since November, further making the case for immediate federal safeguards. There is so much at stake regarding the future of our (global) democratic culture and its relationship to online marketing. We hope others will join with us and raise the larger societal issues, in addition to the specific online ad marketplace concerns.

porn dominican shootsxxx dominican porn picschico donavan phillips porndonita dunes pornlist porn donkeyshow porn donkeydonky clip porn punchdonna star porn bella Map

Congressional Internet Caucus: It’s For Sale!

Who really runs the U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus–Members of Congress or the companies and special interests with the deepest checkbook? Take a look at how a forthcoming Congressional Caucus meeting on wireless issues is, literally, for sale. At the NetCaucus website for the event, chaired by Congressman Mike Honda [Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus’ Wireless Task Force] is a pitch for “sponsorship.” Here’s how you can push your message before the Hill:

“Sponsorship Opportunities

We are seeking responsible industry players to help facilitate this important policy dialogue with a few key sponsorships. These promotional sponsorship options will help position your organization as a thought leader during the substantive discussions. Your assistance will help to bring together leading location-service providers, social networking sites, advertising service providers, wireless carriers, government officials and Congressional players will come together to start discussing the range of issues, policies and opportunities presented by this emerging marketplace.

Options include:
Dialogue pens: Distribute pens with your logo in conference bags and binders.
Dialogue breaks: We’ll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area.
Dialogue Wi-Fi Hotspots: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor.
Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.’s finest restaurants. ICAC staff will work with you to craft the perfect guest list.

Contact us for details & pricing.”

It’s time that the Caucus break its ties with the Advisory Committee and become a truly independent forum. Take a look at the Advisors!

Backing Further U.S. Media Consolidation: State Pension Funds, Foundations and Universities Help Providence Equity Partners New $12b Shopping Spree

Compounding problems with media consolidation is the role that private equity firms are playing buying major media, telecom and advertising properties. We are not only ending up with fewer owners of key newspapers, stations, networks, channels, and digital portals—but these private firms are even more unaccountable to the public. That’s why its disturbing to learn that what has been described as one of the largest funds to buy up media properties—the new Providence Equity Partners VI fund–is financially backed in part by groups which should know better. Investors of the new media merger fund include state pension funds, university endowments and private foundations (in addition to contributions from other pension funds, “high-net-worth” individuals and “funds of funds”). These investors are partnering with Providence’s plan to see more media properties are swallowed up. But likely missing from such buy-outs is any commitment to the public interest, let alone serious support for journalism. Ironically, foundations, unions, and a few university leaders have been part of the “media reform” effort combating further consolidation of “old media” and also working to restore “network neutrality” for U.S. broadband.

Former FCC Chair Michael K. Powell is a senior advisor at Providence, another irony (especially if any of the pension or foundation investment comes from groups backing the public interest media effort). Providence, as we’ve noted previously, has sought to acquire Clear Channel and Tribune. Its new fund will enable it to acquire more cable and other holdings, likely making it a fierce opponent of the effort to ensure broadband cable and phone networks are required to operate in a non-discriminatory manner.

We hope that there will be some serious soul-searching in the foundation, union, and pension investment community. More is at stake than a good return on a dollar. It’s the future of free expression, democratic participation, and civil rights.

The Phoenix Center and Georgetown U School of Business: The Latest `Hyperbolic’ Attack on Network Neutrality

Yesterday, the “Phoenix Center” and the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University jointly presented some scholarly-types who, trade press reports, approved the idea of the Internet evolving as a “two-tier” market. They held the event at the Dirkensen Senate Office Building, in order to make it easier for Hill aides to attend. According to Communications Daily, Dr. John Mayo of Georgtown noted that: “net neutrality legislation could limit markets’ flexibility to set prices. Mayo suggested the periodicals model to take the “hyperbole” out of the net neutrality debate, said needs more cerebral discussion, he said. “The level of certainty in arguments is too high,” Mayo said. At the same time, the potential investment at risk, depending on how legislation is written, is “staggering,” he said.

What these academics and groups like the Phoenix Center don’t want to recognize is an old-fashioned power grab. The phone and cable giants are fearful of an ever-evolving Internet where they will face numerous challenges to their monopolistic broadband plans. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner are alarmed about an “always-on” network where anyone can be a multichannel provider of interactive video, or cheaply send voice and SMS messages. We wish Georgetown University would ask its historians, political scientists, psychologists and other academic experts to work with some of the folks at its School of Business. An economic lens is an insufficient instrument when one is discussing the “good and services” required for a democracy. The broadband Internet is a fundamental public service; an essential information utility in this era. We hope that academics and universities will examine this issue in a way which does true service to the debate. When a broadband platform is fundamentally connected to civic participation, cultural expression, journalism & public affairs, diverse ownership, community development and public safety, we suggest that the scholarly analysis has to be elevated to meet the challenge.

 We note, btw, that Professor Mayo has served as an advisor and consultant to a number of companies and government agencies, including Enron, AT&T, Sprint, MCI and the FTC. Professor Mayo is also listed as an “external expert” for the Analysis Group. Among its clients include various telephone and cable companies, including Time Warner.
Source: “View Internet as Two-Sideded Market, Experts Say.” Anne Veigle. Communications Daily. dateline: Feb. 20, 2007. Subscription required.

Yahoo! Exec Dissses Network Neutrality

A Yahoo! News Vice-President just called the battle to restore network nondiscrimination to U.S. broadband a “tempest in a teapot.” That’s according to a blog post from Celia Wexler of Common Cause. Scott Moore, the Yahoo! exec. was also reported saying that “in a competitive media marketplace, any company that withheld content that people wanted would find those individuals choosing another cable or broadband provider.” It’s clear he doesn’t cover the media industry! We’re not surprised that high-ups at Yahoo! would see network neutrality as something less than important to fight for. Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft know they have the clout–and the business partnerships–to ensure their content and service gets carried by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner. We have also heard–via the Hill–that Google has largely been missing in action when it comes to the net neutral fight.

Ultimately, the big online companies will make their deal with NCTA and USTA. That’s why we urge readers not to believe that network neutrality is some kind of magic digital bullet. Having neutrality alone will not give us the democratic digital media system the country requires. Nor is it certain that Congress will pass anytime soon any policy that truly democratizes the country’s broadband infrastructure. NGO’s and others will still need to build a system, via the marketplace, that places the public interest before profits (although with sites and services that can still makes lots of money to help make sustainable civic expression and social justice work).

Conflict of Interest: Why NY Times, Wash Post, USAToday, CNN, NBC & More Should Acknowledge Role Promoting Threats to Privacy and other Interactive Marketing Problems

Interactive advertising and marketing are helping shape the transformation of the media, here in the U.S. and everywhere else. A infrastructure is being put in place, without the public’s consent, designed to better sell to us 24/7. It’s using some of the most powerful communications technologies ever created to do so. Among the key issues society should be debating right now include the need for privacy safeguards to protect our personal information online, and what kind of limits should be put in place to check the excesses of interactive marketing (think personalized ads flooding your PC, mobile and TV screens, propelled by a data profile of you created via artificial intelligence technologies, and designed to get you to feel or think in a way positive to the brand).

But critical commentary about interactive advertising is largely missing from the ever-present coverage of the digital marketplace. Each day, major papers run stories in their business section about the latest triumph of technology or company. But too rarely do they examine the negative consequences, let alone the role of their own publisher or media firm. One glaring omission by such major news outlets as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, etc. is the relationship they have with the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The IAB is a trade group whose mission is “helping online, Interactive broadcasting, email, wireless and Interactive television media companies increase their revenues.” Among its goals include: “[T]o prove and promote the effectiveness of Interactive advertising to advertisers, agencies, marketers & press;” and “[T]o be the primary advocate for the Interactive marketing and advertising industry.”

On the board of the IAB include officials from the New York Times Company (Martin Nisenholtz, its leading digital exec); Washington Post Newsweek Interactive, Cox Newspapers, USA Today, NBC, CNN, and Disney. They work alongside board members representing Google, AOL, Conde Nast (attention New Yorker magazine!), Verizon, Comcast, Yahoo!, Forbes and others.

There is a clear conflict of interest here when newspapers, television, and online news report on interactive marketing and have a representative helping direct the key group promoting the industry. These news outlets should be disclosing their membership in the IAB and any other industry trade group (which have a political or marketplace mission). Editors at the Times, Post and other papers should commission stories which more effectively analyze the digital marketing industry, including raising the critical issues which the public should debate. They must also prominently disclose their conflict of interest with the IAB as they report on the industry they are working to serve.

Congressional Dems: Why Help out MPAA When its Members Oppose Network Neutrality?

Today’s New York Times has a story about leading Hill Democrats prostrating themselves before the star-power lobbyists of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) [“Hollywood Takes it Concerns about Piracy and Taxes to Washington” Reg. required] Among the Democratic leaders receiving visits included Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Sen. Pat Leahy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. As the article reported, the MPAA “put on a daylong show for lawmakers, lobbyists and Capitol Hill aides, armed with some A-list talent…” Among the stars helping the industry fly its political flag were Will Smith and Clint Eastwood. Amazingly, part of the Hollywood pol spin was that it was pro-“working class.”

But MPAA’s members include companies opposed to network neutrality for U.S. broadband. Other members have allied themselves with the anti-open broadband cause. MPAA member Warner Bros. Entertainment, controlled by cable giant Time Warner, is one of the leading opponents of network neutrality. Sony Pictures is a partner with anti-open Net ringleader Comcast. The Walt Disney Company no longer supports a national open broadband policy (given its own dealings with Comcast and others, it has reversed its once open Net stance). NBC Universal and Murdoch’s Fox, the other two MPAA members, also support the anti-net neutrality status quo (of course, most MPAA companies have used their political clout to secure additional access to digital and broadband distribution, via retransmission consent).

There should be no tax breaks for Hollywood or help with “piracy” until the organization comes out for restoring network neutrality. Star-struck Democratic lawmakers who support network neutrality should tell the MPAA its Hill agenda is in “turnaround” until they agree to a national non-discriminatory policy for U.S. broadband.