Category: cable TV

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.

Time Warner’s AOL: Bad Broadband Karma

No matter how Richard Parsons and company spin it, AOL is ultimately a loser. What the press coverage on AOL’s ever-changing business model ignores is that the online service doesn’t have legal access to broadband. AOL is frozen in digital time, able to offer most users only outmoded dial-up access. But AOL’s ignoble demise is fitting—given the company’s abandonment of its call for non-discriminatory “open access” to broadband (the key issue underlying today’s network neutrality debate).

It was AOL, after all, that led the corporate campaign in the late 1990’s calling on the Clinton FCC and the Congress to require non-discriminatory access for ISPs to cable broadband. AOL argued—as net neutrality proponents are today—that the Internet’s success had been based on federal policies requiring phone networks to serve everyone in a fair and open manner. AOL’s Steve Case understood that soon high-speed Internet service would replace dial-up and that cable systems would be the leading provider of broadband. Case desperately sought to have cable operate its Internet access service under the same federal policy safeguards that governed phone company dial-up. (He even backed a non-profit group called “No Gatekeepers”).

The cable industry, including Time Warner, used its political clout to prevent any policy that would have ensured the U.S. broadband system be operated in a non-discriminatory and more competitive manner. Recognizing that AOL would be shut out of broadband and that its future was doomed, it engineered a take-over of number two cable giant Time Warner. Both AOL’s Steve Case and Time Warner’s Gerry Levin shared a similar view for the future of the Internet—to turn it into an even more powerful advertising medium than television. To achieve this goal, Case quickly dropped his call for “open access” for broadband. He foolishly believed that by having AOL merge with Time Warner it would be part of the cable “costa nostra,” its broadband access assured.

On the day the merger deal was announced, Case stood by Levin as open access to broadband became another victim of corporate greed. Levin declared that the new AOL Time Warner was “going to take the open access issue out of Washington, and out of city hall and put it into the marketplace, into the commercial arrangements that should occur to provide the kind of access for as much content as possible.” That was shorthand for: “AOL will have access through us. Everyone else forgetaboutit.”

So now Dick Parsons—who was part of the team that created the most infamously unsuccessful merger in U.S. media history—is once again re-engineering AOL. It may in the short term bring in more ad dollars, helping it fulfill the Case/Levin/Parsons vision that the Internet’s future is interactive TV-like marketing. But AOL’s real problem is that it can’t offer its users broadband since it has no legal access to it—a political cause it gave up when the going got rough in the (admittedly) politically corrupt culture of Washington, D.C. media politics. That’s why we believe the eventual demise of AOL is a fitting conclusion to its own self-serving role in the U.S. broadband debate.

QoS and the Network Neutrality debate: Gaming Policymakers to Win the `Triple Play’

A refrain from the phone and cable industry, in the debate over network neutrality, is they have to manage their networks. Hence, their claim they need the authority to oversee traffic flows—such as ensuring a time-sensitive Voice over the Internet (VOIP) phone call is promptly delivered (while allowing more time, say, for an email to reach you). Such traffic management techniques are often called “Quality of Service” or QoS. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and others suggest that they would be hamstrung by a net neutrality safeguard, because it would prevent or impede them from using QoS techniques to ensure time sensitive information is given priority.

But network neutrality proponents aren’t saying that network providers shouldn’t be able to fairly and efficiently manage the network. We are all for a digital traffic cop who works for the good of all. But phone and cable companies want a private electronic operative on the beat. They want to use QoS to give their traffic (video, data, etc.) a turbo-charged passage via fast lanes into our PCs, TV’s, and mobile devices. Why? So they can enjoy what they are calling the “triple play.” That’s the latest communications industry buzzword ((goodbye synergy!) reflecting plans to monetize as much as possible our digital lives. Triple Play means that Verizon or Time Warner will lock up customers by selling them voice, video, and data services in either or both wired and wireless formats. As part of their “Triple Play” business model, phone and cable companies want to use QoS to extract (extort) fees from content providers who also want to travel on fast lanes by getting a friendly electronic nod from the private traffic cops.

We urge you to read some of the literature illustrating how control over the network is key to AT&T and others plans to score a triple play. And then we ask—do we really want to let a few companies control the U.S. Internet’s digital destiny? Tell Senator Stevens—who doesn’t seem to really get the problem—that he should stand up for Internet freedom. (We also urge you to contact Senator Inouye and ask him to oppose any legislation that fails to protect U.S. online communications).

The Washington Post’s editorial board on Network Neutrality: Boy, do they need someone who knows the media business working there!

The Washington Post’s editorial position on media and communications policy issues has generally taken a pro-consolidation line over the years. This is ironic and sad, especially given the concerns expressed by the paper’s two top editors about the dramatic decline of quality in U.S. journalism. But in their much acclaimed “News about the News: American Journalism in Peril,” Len Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser fail to acknowledge at all the role which consolidation contributes to the deterioration of journalism. For the impact of media industry lobbying on media ownership has led to newsroom cutbacks and an industry orientation to journalism `light.’ But Downie and Kaiser—as well as their editorial board colleagues—fail to make the connection between regulatory safeguards and a media system that serves a broad range of information needs in a democracy. Nor is the Post ever clear to its readers about what it is really doing when it comes to lobbying Washington to advance its own corporate interests. For example, the paper has never well explained the Post Co.’s political support for the elimination of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard (which is about to be taken up, once more, by the FCC).

In the case of network neutrality, the Post should have been more candid about the political role its parent (Washington Post Co.) is playing. It’s not as simple as [we have] “interests on both sides of this issue.” The Post Co’s cable subsidiary president, Thomas O. Might, has been on the cable lobby board of directors (NCTA) for years. The Post therefore has been intimately involved in the closed-door strategy developed by the NCTA to over-turn the rules requiring an open, non-discriminatory Internet. In addition, the Post’s clout enables it to distribute its content over GE/NBC/Microsoft online properties–something a start-up would find it difficult to readily obtain.
On the merits of the Post’s argument, we can only say that they are either being disingenuous with readers or are incredibly naïve about the media business. In its editorial, they dismiss our concerns that–in the absence of network neutrality– the Internet will come to resemble the cable T.V. industry. They claim that technology will ensure the low-cost production of content. But what they ignore is that like cable, the company that controls the wires (or airwaves, in the case of wireless), can determine how each packet of content fares on the network. The few cable and phone companies, which now control 98% of the U.S. broadband market, can use their power to choose winners and losers (as the cable TV industry has done with video programming). In addition, those content providers that can best promote and process their interactive content will also have a digital leg up. Without net neutrality, the online programming owned or affiliated with the phone and cable broadband duopoly will always be in the lead.

As for speculation—it’s not. The equipment to control the Net’s future is being rolled out, as we speak

Will Microsoft, Yahoo!, Diller, etc. Send in the Ads to Save Net Neutrality?

It’s time for the six big new media corporate supporters of network neutrality to get real—or go back to Silicon Valley, Seattle, or Aspen. What’s needed now—after the disastrous and humiliating vote in the House—is the one thing that politicians really respect and fear—TV ads. Letters from Microsoft and visits from cyber wunderkinds aren’t enough, especially with the PR and lobbying blitz underwritten by the Telco’s. As the Senate Commerce Committee takes up network neutrality this week, it’s time for Gates, Brin, Barry Diller, Terry Semel, and Bezos to get real (we acknowledge with respect the work done by eBay CEO Meg Whitman asking one million of its members to take action).

The copy for the ad is a no-brainer: `The big Phone and Cable Companies (yes—our partners AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) want to have a monopoly over the Internet. They want to jack up the prices you and I pay for service. They want to transform the ‘Net into a pay as surf toll road filled with commercials and the kinds of programs the FCC will soon impose stiffer fines for. Help us stop them. (So, okay, that’s not the ad. But they can afford their own copywriter.)

So, we ask. Will these companies devote the resources—a pittance to their bottom lines—to help save the U.S. digital communications system from these corporate cutthroats? Or, are they really a two-faced bunch of new media conglomerates that don’t have the best interests for the democratic potential of the broadband Internet at heart?

Watch your TV screens to find out.

As the House Votes on Net Neutrality, A Case Study of a Non-Neutral Net/Verizon-Disney’s Broadband Deal Illustrates Power of Telco Powerhouses

When Verizon and Disney signed a “long-term programming agreement” in 2005, it illustrated why the Congress should enact net neutrality safeguards. Disney sought to secure the broadband gate keeping power that Verizon (and only a few others) have over both digital TV and Internet distribution. Under the deal, Verizon agreed to distribute (via its FIOS service) a dozen channels on the preferential expanded basic tier. They included: ABC Family, ABC News Now, Disney Channel, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, Ton Disney and SOAP net. Disney also gained favorable distribution for its Spanish language content and its video-on-demand library,

But more importantly, Verizon agreed to bless a Disney owned “broadband product portfolio” including “ABC News Now, Disney Connection, ESPN360, Movies.com and a newly launched broadband soap opera product.” This will likely give Disney content the fast-lane service (including better promotion) that Verizon, AT&T and cable want to impose for the online medium. In addition, in an example of how a Verizon can police the Internet for its favored customers, the agreement included a promise by the phone giant to identify subscribers who are infringing on Disney’s “copyrighted works.” Verizon agreed to “forward and track notices to its subscribers allegedly engaged in the unauthorized distribution of Disney’s copyrighted works, without identifying the subscribers to Disney, and either provide subscriber identifying information pursuant to lawfully served subpoenas or terminate Verizon Internet service provided to subscribers who have infringed Disney copyrights and received multiple notices.”

Without network neutrality, every content provider will have to try and negotiate some deal with a Verizon or Comcast. The Internet should operate without gate keepers and online snoops. Let’s not let them turn the Net into Mickey Mouse. Congress must stand up to the special phone and cable interests

Memo to Heritage’s James Gattuso: The era of trickle down media economics is over

For too long, conservative media and communications advocates have supported a policy regime that has failed the public. Just give (fill in all or your favorites) the broadcasters, the cable companies, the phone companies, the technology companies a “free” rein, and all of our needs for a diverse, competitive, and democratic system will flourish. Technology, if left unfettered, will fulfill its potential (see his blog entry at Technology Liberation Front). Like the trickle-down economists, Mr. Gattuso and colleagues have held sway with many politicians and FCC commissioners. But—media history has proved them wrong. That’s why we are not going to let them do to the Internet what they have done to commercial broadcasting and cable communications.

Just leave us alone, eliminate all public interest policies, and the technology will fulfill its democratic potential. That’s what commercial radio said in the early 1930’s. Broadcast TV echoed it during the 1950’s. Cable used it to win “deregulation” in 1984. Consequently, we have a homegenous system of broadcasting and cable where there is no real diversity, little in-depth journalism, barely any competition. Such a laissez-faire media environment has harmed the country, principally through undermining the potential for serious journalism.

The rhetoric of Mr. Gattuso and many of his anti-network neutrality allies is wrapped around a decades old critique of communications policy. In their world—the public are just consumers. They are not citizens or other active members of the community. They espouse that the interests of the network provider should be paramount. We believe it’s the interests of everyone: teachers, parents, children, journalists, the poor and countless others that must be taken into account when conceptualizing policy for communications. Democratic expression—not corporate profits—must come first. The market will still have plenty of room (and will do even better if it treats people fairly and helps build a stronger U.S.)

I am amazed that many so-called experts ignore what’s really going on in the commercial marketplace—let alone behind the scenes in the policy sphere.
First, there are clear plans to change the way the Internet works. It’s not about generating revenues to build out the network. It’s about greed—money for a few telecom giants. At the expense of a communications system that serves all—for other commercial giants, small businesses, non-profit corporations, and the average Jane and Joe. AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want to seize what they are already calling their “pipes” to give themselves the monopolistic advantages they have lost as a result of technological change.

We all know that competition law—and the FCC—are not effective tools to protect either competition or [more importantly] public discourse. Conservatives have railed against government for years—esp. the FCC. Now they are saying, don’t worry, if there are problems—our bloated, corrupt and ineffective governmental institutions can take care of you. I don’t believe in buying the digital equivalent to the Brooklyn Bridge—nor should conservative media advocates argue for one.

The cable and phone lobby have used their collective political power to gain dominant control over U.S. broadband distribution. They went to the FCC and wiped out competition via other ISPs (there were thousands in the U.S. during the dial-up era). Phone and cable companies have lobbied side-by-side to prevent municipal or non-profit competition. They deliberately eliminated the policy requiring non-discriminatory treatment of content—a sure sign in my view they intend to discriminate (but come to our website to read white papers and other documents that show how such discrimination online will be done).

Both the cable and phone industry have the same business model—a souped up broadband video on demand kind of service filled with data collection, interactive ads, and other elements from our popular culture. They don’t need the network to differentiate—because they are the same. The vision they have for the future of the Internet is television. We deserve better.

Net neutral rules would enable new entrepreneurs to emerge and help protect free speech. Yes, Mr. Gattuso. It would lead to lobbying and lawsuits. The big cable and telephone companies will do anything to control the future of the U.S. media marketplace. But with net neutral rules, other voices will have a better chance to be heard. Voices—we hope—interested in building a better democracy and an Internet that serves all equitably.

PS: I’m sorry that Mr. Gattuso doesn’t like our pointing out some of Heritage’s funders that raise a potential policy conflict over network neutrality. But disclosure is very important. So when AT&T is a premium sponsor of Heritage—it behooves Mr. Gattuso to say so clearly. He also should have identified where Prof. Yoo—whom he quotes/cities frequently—gets some of his money as he attacks network neutrality (the cable lobby).

NetCompetition.org: Distortions and Cable/Telco Flackery

We are disappointed that Scott Cleland would act as “chair” and chief advocate for this anti-open Internet group. Its “members” (really its financial backers) are a rogue’s gallery of some of the most powerful and avaricious big media companies: Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, Advance Newhouse, and AT&T. This front-group also includes industry lobbying heavyweights NCTA, CTIA, USTA, and ACA. In other words, it’s a cable and Telco joint lobbying venture. The role that the cellular lobby (CTIA) plays here illustrates how both the wireline and wireless industries wish to jointly create a cash and carriage broadband distribution system.

But the “research” and information on netcompetition.org is shoddy and reflects a vision promoting monopoly power and greed. Mr. Cleland and his allies should know better. Net Neutrality is about democracy—removing barriers to the distribution of content essential for a civil society to function. That’s why nearly all the consumer and good government groups support network neutrality. It’s not about the corporate welfare of a Google or Microsoft. It’s about ensuring there are as few gatekeepers as possible for content promoting such applications as political speech, civic engagement, non-profit arts and culture, education, life-long learning and everything else we require in a digital society. I don’t have time here to rebut all their assertions (they all all shamefully misleading). This is a mean-spirited, propagandistic website. Mr. Cleland should have the group change its name to more honestly reflect what they are about: netmonopoly.con

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?