Category: Comcast

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

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.

NetCompetition.Org: They Have Drunk Too Much Cable/Telco Lobby Kool-Aid

We hate to focus too much on this Telco-Cable industry funded lobbying effort. But its latest [9/29] self-heralded “one-pager” attacking network neutrality proponents requires a response (we admit we may have come down with a Sen. Stevens form of `fetish’ about this lobbying site). Netcompetition’s analysis comes from a naive view of the realities of the broadband market. The paper paints a glowing picture of what it believes is emerging broadband competition. Hence, with such prospective abundance of networks and content likely, it argues that the country ignore the calls for safeguards coming from net neutrality supporters. We are, suggests Scott Cleland, experiencing “unfounded pessimism and fear about the future of broadband…”

First, we have to say that history is on our side. Despite all the talk and proclamations about bypass and competition—we haven’t had much in the multichannel and telecom sector. It’s been a sad story of consolidation and broken promises. Two, Mr. Cleland is ignoring the powerful triple/quad play now being deployed by his funders. Their networks—and content applications and partnerships—will dominate our TV, PC, and mobile experience for many years. The current state of broadband concentration–along with the emerging marketplace conditions–should be unthinkable in a democracy. Two companies control the cable industry; two will dominate the telephone market. Already, old media incumbents are swallowing new players—such as the News Corp. takeover of MySpace. There is tremendous consolidation throughout the digital content marketplace.

Hey Netcompetition. Your argument that just over the hill our digital media system is awash in a Wizard of Oz golden glow doesn’t cut it. We need safeguards now.

It’s not pessimism, but honest realism with an eye on the needs of our democracy. That’s a currency in too short supply in the nation’s capital.

PBS Commercialization: The Comcast, Kidvid and Sprout connection

Next month, PBS’s Sprout is celebrating its one-year launch with a self-proclaimed birthday bash. Sprout is a channel aimed at pre-schoolers. It has advertising and is a commercial venture. PBS was lured into the deal in part by Comcast, which was seeking cheap-to-buy and already in the can “family-friendly” content for its cable TV systems (including its video on demand service). By agreeing to this deal, PBS ultimately embraced a more commercialized, monopoly-media dependent model for its future. Instead of protecting children from an advertising culture, PBS helped to enhance it. (PBS wasn’t alone in wanting such a deal. Some of its children’s TV producers, who actually control the rights to programming, wanted an outlet beyond the limits of PBS broadcasting. )

The September Sprout “anniversary” (as they are touting it) should be accompanied by some serious reflection at PBS headquarters, its stations, and producers like Sesame Workshop. They are helping lead PBS further down the wrong path during this critical time of transition in the digital video era.

Hey, Big Spender: Telco’s and Cable Buy Favor on the Hill

The National Journal’s excellent David Hatch has kept his journalistic eye on all the telecom/cable lobbying money flowing in to Congress. Millions are being spent to keep lawmakers favorably disposed against net neutrality and other broadband safeguards. The majority of AT&T’s giving (67%) has gone to the GOP. Other big spenders include Comcast, BellSouth, Verizon and Time Warner (the latter should spend less on lobbying and more on privacy. But, of course, they really don’t want to).

Read David’s article. See how Speaker Hastert, House Commerce chair Joe Barton and many others have done well for themselves. And then follow the money when the voting on network neutrality comes this fall.

abendlich rauscht mp3 wald der schonwald mp3 abendlich rauscht schon derrauscht wald mp3 schon abendlich dercupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3cupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3fair advance wav mp3 australia Map

Why the Phone and Cable Industries Fear the Net

Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and others oppose network neutrality because they fear competition: from the Internet. In this piece I wrote for The Nation magazine, online, I discuss what their plans are for our broadband futures. Read it and fight (on) for a more democratic, diverse, and even perhaps competitive digital media system.

What Comcast Uber-Lobbyist David Cohen’s Isn’t Saying about Net Neutrality

David Cohen is Comcast’s chief political lobbyist. His role is to help the company quash potential competition. Cohen operates in D.C., at state capitals, and city hall. When Comcast believes that competition will emerge, they call on Mr. Cohen. For example, Comcast played a major role in the passage of anti-public interest legislation in a number of states banning community broadband networks.

Now the Roberts family has set Mr. Cohen to undermine what is the biggest threat to the nation’s # 1 cable monopoly: an open Internet. Cohen just wrote an op-ed yesterday [registration required] in the San Jose Mercury News. He had the chutzpah to say that rules ensuring all online content is treated fairly would be harmful because they could stifle “a child friendly-content zone” online! This coming from one of the leading providers of porn—Comcast! Comcast has also just begun promoting some of its new on-demand channels, including Playboy, Howard Stern, and something called “Dating on Demand” (from its website: “our stealth crew of sneaky eavesdroppers trails close behind and captures everything on tape. And we mean everything — the good, the bad and the “Holy crap can you believe he did that!”).

So, when Mr. Cohen makes the phony charge that net neutrality would take channel space away from kids services or health information—what he really means is that Comcast wants to control all the space itself. It wants to use bandwidth/channel capacity so it can profit from porn and other high-revenue content. It doesn’t want any video or online competition to emerge that might take away eyeballs, ad dollars, and subscription revenues.

The truth is Comcast, like other net neutrality opponents AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner, are terrified of an open Internet. If the Net remains open, then anyone can provide phone or video service. Who would need a Comcast then? No one.

That’s why Comcast is opposed to net neutrality, and why it is buying next-generation broadband technology from Cisco. Comcast wants to serve as a gatekeeper over the flow of video and data coming into our homes. Net neutrality rules would prevent Comcast from becoming a digital super-monopoly.
Beware of cable lobbyists—they’re a hazard to our democracy’s health.

Kill Bill: Steven’s Commerce Committee Posts “Tube” (I mean Telecom) Bill

Here’s an example of the narrow-minded, telecom lobbyist written, communications policies that undermine the development of a U.S. democratic media system in the digital era. Congress–as usual–doesn’t really want to acknowledge why the cable and telephone industry are so afraid of the Internet as we now know it (real competition for ideas and commercial advantage). Leaders such as Sen. Stevens have their heads in the digital sands. By letting a few narrow (but powerful) interests–such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner–dominate the distribution of digital media, Stevens/Joe Barton and company are undermining both democratic discourse and competition.
This is the marked-up bill passed by Senate Commerce. It should be called the “Telephone & Cable Monopoly Giveaway and Anti Consumer/Community Act of 2006.” We will be back soon with a full analysis. But it’s revealing that the U.S. public is treated as “subscribers” or “consumers”–not as citizens and others deserving a broad and expanded set of rights.
http:// www. commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/HR5252RS.pdf

PS: The Stevens Committee also released–and then pulled, we were told–a “brochure” promoting its bill. Sen. Stevens apparently feels desperate that his bill–and lack of understanding about how the Internet works–was getting so much bad press. I guess he–and his aides–don’t know much about PR either. Here’s the brochure.