Category: cable TV

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.

A Google-Cable Industry Alliance?

A quote from a Reuters story about a Google exec. complaining that the Internet has a lack of bandwidth for delivering video and multi-media. It suggests that Google’s plan to further transform the Internet into a better interactive video ad system will eventually bring it into an alliance with the phone and cable giants.

Reuters: “The Web infrastructure, and even Google’s (infrastructure) doesn’t scale. It’s not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect,” Vincent Dureau, Google’s head of TV technology, said at the Cable Europe Congress. Google instead offered to work together with cable operators to combine its technology for searching for video and TV footage and its tailored advertising with the cable networks’ high-quality delivery of shows.”

Source: “Internet not Designed for TV, Google Warns.” Lucas van Grinsven, European Telecoms Correspondent. February 7, 2007.

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.

Washington

We wish the editors and reporters covering telecommunications would follow the money–and ask all the interested parties who foots their bill. They would find–with academics especially–so many financial links as to wonder whether these so-called experts aren’t violating some scholarly code of ethics. Take today’s psuedo scholarly attack on network neutrality by David Farber, Michael Katz and Christopher S. Woo. No where in the piece does it state that both Professors Katz and Yoo have taken money from the cable industry. Such funding led–natch–to industry supportive research pieces. Disclosure of such financial ties is required to be prominently displayed in such a piece, so readers can better place in context what is being said. Super cable monopoly Comcast hired UC Berkeley’s Katz in 2003 to produce research which placed the industry in favorable light. Comcast, of course, opposes network neutrality [I cover the role of Katz and other communications -academics-for -industry hire in my new book, btw]. Professor Yoo worked for the cable lobby NCTA last year to write a net neutrality study as well. Even Davd Farber should have disclosed he has spoken under the banner of the Verizon Foundation at Carnegie Mellon.

The Post’s editors must have asked if contributors have any conflicts? If so, what exactly did Professors Farber, Katz, and Yoo reply? We urge the Post to publish any such submissions. Moreover, the Post op-ed page must now seek response from parties who don’t have a money trail littering their “scholarship.”

Sources: “Study Slams Cooper’s Cable Research.” Multichannel News. 8/26/03

butt movies girls ebonyceleb free movies nudemovie galleries sex freefree squirting moviesfuck movies machinekacey teen kacey movieslesbian free download moviemovies sex adult Map

The Brandwashing of America: Micropersuasion in the Digital Era. Adapted from my new book, Digital Destiny

(The following commentary was published by Advertising Age online, Jan. 9, 2007)

‘Digital Destiny’ Author Jeff Chester on How New Media Is Causing the Brandwashing of America

By Jeff Chester

Published: January 09, 2007

We are witnessing the creation of the most powerful media and communications system ever developed. A flood of compelling video images propelled by the interactivity of the internet will be delivered though digital TVs, PCs, cellphones, digital video recorders, iPods, and countless mobile devices. These technologies will surround us, immerse us, always be on, wherever we are — at home, work or play.

Image

Jeff Chester is the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, Washington a nonprofit policy group focusing on digital communications. | ALSO: Comment on this issue in the ‘Your Opinion’ box below.

Related Story:

America Is Being ‘Brandwashed’ Claims Author
Jeff Chester Says Ad Industry Secretly Tracks Consumers

Following our travels
Much of the programming will be personalized, selected by us with the help of increasingly sophisticated, but largely invisible, technologies that will “sense” or “know” our interests, dislikes, and habits. Information about our travels — in cyber and real space — will be collected and stored, most often without our awareness. Our personal data will be the basis of computerized profiles that quickly generate commercial pitches honed to precisely fit our psychology and behavior.

A ubiquitous system of micropersusaion is emerging, where the potent forces of new media are being unleashed to influence our individual behavior. From the ad industry’s initiatives to better perfect measures such as “engagement,” to the MI4 research effort (Measurement Initiative for Advertising, Agencies, Media and Researchers) to harness the power of the unconscious mind, to the rapid evolution of “rich media” virtual applications, a marketing technological “arms race” is underway that will further permeate advertising and marketing in our daily lives.

Wherever we are — online or in the street connected by mobile devices — Americans (and much of the world) will be increasingly influenced by the technologies of digital marketing. Such a system will be greatly aided by the scores of supplemental “real world” marketing efforts, including teams of viral street marketers and brand evangelists (many of whom are not yet old enough to vote!).

Increasing power
The ad industry likes to claim that the public has more control over what advertising they see or whether they like it at all. Many Ad Age readers point to the increasing expansion of the media and argue that advertising is now less powerful. But such assertions are disingenuous. Fueled by global media consolidation, advertisers are now working even more closely with content companies. Product placement has morphed into “program” placement and beyond. Like radio and the early days of broadcast TV, marketing, distribution and content are increasingly seamless. The broadband internet, digital TV and new forms of mobile communications are all being shaped by the forces of marketing. As I argue in my new book, “Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy,” advertising is becoming more powerful, not less.

In the book, I chronicle the ad industry’s role in helping shape the early development of the internet, including how groups and companies such as the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF), Procter & Gamble Co., and The New York Times promoted what was once called the “Internet Advertising Ecosystem.” It covers the evolution of the “one-to-one,” “new media” marketing paradigm that still serves as the industry’s basic digital blueprint (further fueled today by sophisticated off- and online data collection, web analytics, interactivity and the branding power of video). The ad industry’s substantial research and political infrastructure — including ARF, Association of National Advertisers, American Association of Advertising Agencies, Interactive Advertising Bureau, its many councils and committees and global groups such as Esomar — are also explained.

From online “behavioral targeting” to interactive ad networks to “virtual hosts” and other “socially intelligent interfaces,” the book attempts to lay bare what marketers plan for the country’s “digital destiny.” Although readers of Ad Age know well what is now underway and its likely impact, the public is largely uninformed. One of my goals is to encourage a meaningful national debate about the current direction of the ad and marketing industry and its impact on society.

Let consumers decide
One of the most serious concerns is about privacy. Most marketers and advertisers are opposed to permitting consumers/users to have real control over their data. They want the default to be the collection of information so we can be precisely targeted. That’s why privacy groups, including my own Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), want Congress to pass legislation requiring a full disclosure of what information is being collected, via what method, and how it is to be used. After examining such details, each consumer would decide on a periodic basis whether to agree to permit the collection of their data (known as “opt-in”).

The current “opt-out” system, where consumers have to proactively seek to place their personal information off-limits, is designed to ensure that most consumers consent by default to data collection. New threats to our privacy from marketers and advertisers have emerged, including behavioral targeting, online retargeting (where consumers are digitally shadowed over ad networks), and the emergence of “intelligent ad engines” placed in cellphones and other mobile devices.

Recently, CDD and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group jointly filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission asking the agency to declare many of today’s interactive advertising industry practices, including behavioral targeting and virtual advertising, unfair and deceptive. It appears that the FTC is now slowly lifting its head out of the digital sand to seriously investigate the industry based on our complaint. But it will take prodding from the new Congress to get the FTC to act.

Safeguards for new technology
Beyond privacy, interactive-marketing technologies also raise unique concerns about “vulnerable” populations. Unleashing personalized and cyber-virtual marketing to children, teens, prescription-drug users, and the elderly raise important questions related to public health. These groups will need to be protected with new safeguards. But even more is at stake. The entire system of interactive advertising must become more transparent and requires intense public scrutiny, debate, and — where needed — effective public policies.

For example, advertisers are now working to harness the power of our emotions through research on “neuroscience” and “psychophysiology.” As the ARF and AAAA explained in 2005 during Advertising Week, the industry wants to “capture unconscious thought, recognition of symbols and metaphors.”

“Emotional responses can be created even if we have no awareness of the stimuli that caused them,” the ARF and AAAA noted. Such potential manipulation of a consumer’s unconscious will be even more powerful when delivered by virtual agents (such as avatars) that have been fashioned (via data profiling) to dovetail with our desires and interests.

What’s the long-term impact?
I fear that such a powerful psychosocial stealth-marketing machine, backed by the yearly expenditure of many billions of marketing dollars, will drive personal consumption to greater excess. What will be the impact on our environment, such as global warming, as a steady stream of interactive marketing messages are planted deep into our brains wherever we go? Will the digital push to buy and positively associate with brands promote an even more narcissistic human culture? What will be the impact of our personalized communications marketing system on the healthy development of children, families and communities?

The ad and marketing industries have an important role to play in our society, especially helping financially support news, information, and entertainment services. I recognize that advertising will continue to be a very powerful force in our lives. But marketers need to demonstrate greater social responsibility. They must ensure that consumers fully understand and consent to digital techniques; make certain that approaches to target our emotions and other brain behaviors are truly safe (including the impact of virtual reality); and, most importantly, help our media system evolve in a way that strengthens civil society.

Such a goal is not for the U.S. alone, but also involves how the marketing industry serves the public in the developing world. For example, what will be the impact on the world environment as China’s emerging digital infrastructure is bombarded with one-to-one commercial messages promoting automobiles?

The creation of a broadband media system will be viewed by future generations as one of our society’s most significant accomplishments. Will it be seen as one of the highest achievements for a democracy, a place in cyberspace that helped enrich the lives of many and offered new opportunities for an outpouring of cultural and civic expression? Or will it been seen years hence as a new version of what the late scholar Neil Postman aptly described as a medium even more capable of “amusing ourselves to death”? The readers of Ad Age will help determine that answer.

~ ~ ~
This column was adapted from Mr. Chester’s new book “Digital Destiny” (The New Press, 2007).

Beware the “new” AT&T: Time for a national citizens’ “Broadband Watch”

Fresh from its merger approval by the FCC, AT&T (nee SBC) took out a two-page color ad in the New York Times today. Their PR pitch floats over a picture of our planet’s atmosphere. Like fellow broadband super-monopolist Comcast, the “new” AT&T clearly has imperial ambitions. It desires to dominate both network connections and digital content.

Read their ad copy to see what I mean: “AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular have come together. Creating the nation’s largest provider of broadband, wireless and voice services and the world leader in IP networking. Three companies, now united to deliver the complete picture of communications and entertainment to every screen…”

Note the word “entertainment,” signaling the real goal for the broadband giant. They will use their network power to push all kinds of programming which pleases big brand advertisers and major content producers (think Viacom, Fox, etc).

The FCC should have rejected the AT&T/BellSouth deal. Commissioners Copps and Adelstein did what they could—heroically so. But the multimedia mega merger illustrates why public interest advocates must push for anti-trust and merger reform for the media and telecommunications sector. Otherwise (as I note in my new book), we will soon see phone and cable companies merge with new media companies (think Yahoo! or Google) and also swallow up newspapers, broadcasters and the like.

But we can’t count on the policy process to deliver any semblance of real reform. That’s why activists need to examine closely how AT&T and other broadband giants operate the network. It’s not the private fiefdom of AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc. The digital media system is also a public trust, requiring serious citizen and activist oversight. From issues related to network capacity, to deals made with content providers, to how phone and cable companies address public interest content online, via mobile device, and with digital TV, this network (like this Land) is yours and mine. In each community, teams of activists should work with experts to monitor what AT&T and others do—reporting the good, bad, and ugly to city councils, the press, etc. We must proactively redistribute the balance of power when it come to how broadband serves the U.S. public.

Time Magazine: You’ve Got Hypocrisy

Time’s person of the year issue named You– and everyone else—as its annual award recipient. Hailing what it called “Citizens of the New Digital Democracy,” the Time Warner flagship publication breathlessly published a series of exuberant articles about how the new media is dramatically changing our country and the world. “You control the Information age” claimed the magazine headline, complete with a mirror-like cover device so you could admire yourself. But the failure of Time to seriously address the key issues raised by Web 2.0 and broadband illustrates the many hurdles to overcome if we are to have any semblance of a digital democracy.

Perhaps the best example of Time’s failure to truly be honest with readers/users was its failure to address the elimination of network neutrality. Time magazine’s parent company is one of the corporate leaders opposed to an open and non-discriminatory Internet. Time Warner is part of the cable industry lobbying apparatus that has eliminated broadband non-discrimination in the U.S. If Time Warner–and its allies Comcast, Verizon and AT&T–have their way, a handful of cable and phone conglomerates will actually determine much of our digital destiny. These old media giants want to extend their monopolies into the digital era, ensuring that their content receives preferential treatment; that broadband becomes a pay as your surf and post toll-road; and that they become powerful barons of the digital domain.

Time magazine should have acknowledged that its parent company is opposed to limits on media consolidation. It wishes to own as much of cable as it can (so it could continue to swallow up cable systems, such as what it and Comcast recently did when they carved up giant Adelphia cable). The magazine should have acknowledged that its parent once before had predicted great things for the U.S. public with new media—when AOL and Time Warner merged in what was then the largest media merger in U.S. history. It should have acknowledged the numerous lies given by Time Warner executives to shareholders, consumers, and policymakers when it claimed to be a sound and public-minded deal.

The cover story should have acknowledged how the new media poses great threats to our privacy, as data is collected about our every move by AOL and many others. It should have discussed how Time Warner’s AOL made public our personal search data, and also turned over records about our searches to the Bush Administration. Instead of mindlessly claiming that to see the future of our media we should look at raw videos on YouTube, it should have said that the public should learn about how Time Warner’s interactive ad subsidiary—Advertising.com—targets us with personalized digital marketing.

As we discuss in our new book—out tomorrow—much of today’s new media “vision” is driven by a desire to create a stronger mechanism for personalized and targeted interactive marketing. Companies such as Time Warner, Google, and Yahoo want to combine the branding power of video with the data collecting and interactive capabilities of the Internet. It will be a digital democracy shaped by Madison Avenue. That was the vision originally developed for our new media future by AOL and Time Warner’s leaders Steve Case and Richard Parsons. Much of Web 2.0 is based on that vision: a system designed to promote the “brandwashing” of America.

Yes, we have endless possibilities with new media, including the Web 2.0 paradigm. But powerful political and economic forces will shape what ultimately develops. If Time Warner has its way, they will hold a key copyright over our digital democracy.

New York Times and Network Neutrality: Great position. But the paper needs to disclose its own conflicts on the issue

This week the New York Times editorial page weighed-in to support national legislation requiring network neutrality (“Protecting Internet Democracy,” January 3, 2007. Reg. may be required). We share those sentiments, of course. It’s time for a law that restores and extends Internet non-discrimination in the U.S. But we also believe that news organizations need to inform readers/viewers/users about how their own corporate relationships are affected by communications policy issues. The New York Times Co. is staking much of its future on digital media, including interactive advertising. For example, it acquired the About.com informational web service in 2005 for $410 million. The goal, said Times Co. officials, was to “increase the company’s revenue from the expanding online advertising business.” The Times Co. has historically been a leader in developing interactive marketing techniques, including so-called “surround sessions” which enable advertisers to digitally follow New York Times online users as they access the paper electronically. Indeed, as we cover in our new book, Digital Destiny, the Times Co.’s Martin Nisenholtz (who heads its digital operations) has been a key ad industry leader promoting the advance of interactive data collection and personalized targeted marketing. Few Times readers and users really understand what the Times Co. is doing with all this data in the service of its advertisers.

The Times Co. requires network neutrality—otherwise it knows it will have to pay a digital version of the Mafioso-like vig to Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T. The major phone and cable conglomerates want to charge everyone an assortment of fees for higher-speed Internet distribution, creating a de facto pay toll road for broadband. Given that everyone will be distributing video-centered multimedia to TV’s, cell phones and PC’s, having such “premium for a price” Internet access will be a necessity to prosper in the Web 2.0 and beyond era. Therefore, the Times Co must have network neutrality if its investments in About.com and other “new media” related strategies will return the profits to help support its journalism (which is a key reason why the country requires network neutrality. Without it, serious journalism will be in future jeopardy—as it is today).

Today, the Times reported that its parent company was selling off its television station group. It’s another indication that the Times Co. (wisely) understands its future lies with broadband. But the success of such a business model depends in part on an open Internet. We believe that the Times should have explained to its readers that when it supports network neutrality, it has its own financial future at stake. The paper, and the rest of the Times properties, should also begin to inform its users about the range of data collection and targeted electronic marketing its doing. Complete and full disclosure should be the rule—not an after-thought serving as fodder for bloggers.