Matt Stoller weighs in Here on the inane comments my FCC Commissioner McDowell and does a good job in unveiling the politics behind McCain’s policy initiatives towards the future of the internet. Whatever one thinks of the merits of either of the dominant party candidates for president, people who care at all about the internet continuing to exist in a fashion we are familiar with should be made aware of the stark choice between the effects of an Obama administration vs. a McCain administration would have in regards to that future.

Google is one of the strongest proponents of net neutrality, and there’s no way in hell that company would support a policy that placed content regulations on their business. But who is actually censoring our communications networks? Verizon, for one, which refused to allow a text message from NARAL to be sent to their members, citing its ‘unsavory’ and controversial nature. AT&T, for another, which censored a web-casted Pearl Jam concert when the lead singer shouted out anti-Bush statements. And Comcast, which not only was caught illegally blocking file sharing by its customers, but has a history of blocking political ads on its cable service that criticize politicians company executives have given money to.

And lo and behold, these are the same companies that are seeking a McCain Presidency, as Amanda Terkel notes in her piece on McCain’s tech policy.

The current campaign cycle is also shaping up to be lucrative. U.S. Telecom Association president and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr., Sprint CEO Daniel R. Hesse, and Verizon chairman and CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg have each raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for McCain’s campaign. AT&T executive vice president for federal relations Timothy McKone has raised at least $500,000.

Add to that list the Alison H. McSlarrow and Kyle E. McSlarrow, both of whom work for cable and telecom interests and both of whom have raised more than $50k for McCain.

What’s really going on is that this week or next, McCain is going to release his technology policy, and he’s looking for cover from business allies, as his policy was written by the telecom lobbyists running his campaign and libertarian Michael Powell, who used his FCC position to garner lucrative business opportunities within the tech and telecom worlds. McCain will talk - just as Bush did in 2004 when he called for universal broadband by 2007 - about how every American needs broadband, but his plan - just like Bush’s - will do nothing to achieve it. What his plan will do is eviscerate consumer protections on the internet, allowing for censorship by private interests like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T who have already demonstrated that they have and will engage in censorship of political speech for business and political reasons.

That’s what is going on here, and FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is the point person in the propaganda campaign. Now, the question is not substantive, it’s whether this campaign will work to persuade people that up is down, that black is white. I don’t think it will.

I hope not. Read the complete post Here

I have to wonder if FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is actually trying to raise a red herring here regarding net neutrality, or if he is simply so drunk on the market society kool aid that he is simply incapable of understanding the full scope of what he is saying, and the depth of fallacy regarding his concern about ‘government’ censorship’ of the internet?

Either way this is completely irresponsible.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

—————
 
A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.

About that ’study’, a colleague of mine from the Alliance for Community Media weighed in with this…

As an adjunct to this, the “study” referred is either a joke (as in hilarious) or a joke (as in so slanted as to be ridiculous.) Or both.

As just one example of many, you may be surprised to learn that:

* Major liberal-leaning sources of news and opinion reach a far greater audience than conservative-leaning sources. Audience reach and circulation statistics illustrate the liberal domination of the five major information media, two of which have no conservative sources:

* Broadcast TV news, millions/day: Liberal 42.1, Conservative 0
* Top 25 newspapers, millions/day: Liberal 11.7, Conservative 1.3
* Cable TV news, millions/month: Liberal 182.8, Conservative 61.6
* Top talk radio, millions/week: Liberal 24.5, Conservative 87.0
* Newsweeklies, millions/week: Liberal 8.5, Conservative 0

Actually, I have no idea of what they hell they’re talking about here. But it does show the value of having studies to back up your claims. This study is cited in the article without any assessment of its validity. It’s assumed to be valid even though it’s obviously a pile of steaming horse poop.

Josh Stearns of Free Press comments on this as well with his excellent blog posting McDowell’s Scare Tactics Reach New Low

Chris Hedges writing for Truthdig takes on the prevailing notion that newspapers and journalism are suffering because of the inability to effectively transform themselves to new technologies. The culprit, it seems, is a much more ubiquitous and relentless factor; the rise and domination of the Corporate State.

The decline of newspapers is not about the replacement of the antiquated technology of news print with the lightning speed of the Internet. It does not signal an inevitable and salutary change. It is not a form of progress. The decline of newspapers is about the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and public responsibility on the part of much of our entrepreneurial class and the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world, a world where information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print.

———-

The rise of our corporate state has done the most, however, to decimate traditional news-gathering. Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., General Electric and Viacom control nearly everything we read, watch, hear and ultimately think. And news that does not make a profit, as well as divert viewers from civic participation and challenging the status quo, is not worth pursuing. This is why the networks have shut down their foreign bureaus. This is why cable newscasts, with their chatty anchors, all look and sound like the “Today” show. This is why the FCC, in an example of how far our standards have fallen, defines shows like Fox’s celebrity gossip program “TMZ” and the Christian Broadcast Network’s “700 Club” as “bona fide newscasts.” This is why television news personalities, people like Katie Couric, have become celebrities earning, in her case, $15 million a year. This is why newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune are being ruthlessly cannibalized by corporate trolls like Sam Zell, turned into empty husks that focus increasingly on boutique journalism. Corporations are not in the business of news. They hate news, real news. Real news is not convenient to their rape of the nation. Real news makes people ask questions. They prefer to close the prying eyes of reporters. They prefer to transform news into another form of mindless amusement and entertainment.

Read The Full Article

It would be a tragic loss to civil society to lose Public, educational and governmental (”PEG”) access programming on cable systems. [“Unscripted Ending”] . The programming will never have network production values, nor should it, to remain accessible and affordable, yet it is rich in local content typically overlooked by slick news channels who thrive on tragedies and advertising. After the Cable lobby buffaloed Congress to effectively end rate and channel regulation in the l984, PEG access is left as the one way to have value returned out of cable’s monopoly rates; where it is a rugged outpost of vigorous public speech. Yes programs can be wild and crazy. Those who want pabulum can get hundreds of channels of it in the vast wasteland.

So long as most people get their news on TV, Internet sites are a poor substitute for PEG access. Contrary to the implication of the article, switching from local to state franchising does not preclude requirement of local PEG channels and services. Vermont switched in the 1970s and has over 20 vigorous local access operations authorized by State statute and overseen under Public Service Board Regulation.

The real agenda of Cable operators is not better regulation. Most neither like nor understand PEG access. The prefer an outdated model to buy programming and cram it down the wire. Most have vivid records of hostility to access requirements and lousy treatment of PEG operations. Beware any monopolist who whines about a “level playing field”– That’s a game the public will not win.

Samuel Press
Burlington VT 05401

The author was the Vermont Public Advocate in the 1980s and represented several local PEG channels.

Something I received from Josh Breitbart…

Here’s a list for the ages: the 20 words Verizon has banned from V-Cast Aside from being typically-Gawker-hysterical, it’s interesting to note the privatization of this process, moving from the FCC to Verizon.

Note: offensive language ahead.

“The 20 Words You Can’t Say on Cellphone TV”

Bruce Dixon of the Black Agenda Report brings up some really good points Here. I continue to have some questions and concerns about the veracity and usefulness of the term ‘media justice.’ However, his critique here about the shortcomings of the ‘media reform movement’, as well as the glaring contradictions between the notion of the rights of private ownership and the duties of public obligation are spot on. Journalism holds a special place and responsibility in civic society, as elucidated by it’s specifically noted Constitutional protections and the clearly outlined purpose delegated to it by our nation’s Founders. Dixon’s call to action on behalf of new laws to ensure media diversity, particularly his specific support for public access in his clear point-by-point prescription to improve our media system, is quite heartening and seconded by those here at USTV Media.

The law lays out in a precious few provisions, that the broadcast spectrum is scarce public property upon which licensees are allowed to operate their monopoly businesses on the condition that they serve the public interest. At the same time the vast majority of all the statutes, the judicial precedents, and the administrative law implicitly and explicitly recognize and make “legitimate” what amount to the private property rights over chunks of the spectrum on the part of broadcast license holders. You can’t get more fundamental, or more contradictory that that.

Since the conflict between private media ownership and public obligation is almost never discussed where the public can access it, it’s easy to see which side of the contradiction is winning. The very notion, in the US at least, that media can be operated any other way than as the private property of wealthy corporations is utterly off the table. In any rational world, we are told, it’s the unquestioned rule. It’s the rule in the courts, it’s the rule at the FCC and in Congress, where Big Media employs hundreds of lobbyists.

Most tellingly, the political imaginations of many in the media reform movement are often limited to the horizons of what judges, regulators, lobbyists, legislators and political consultants think is possible or reasonable in the next year or two. That can’t be good. Judges, regulators, lobbyists and legislators, even the best ones, don’t start or lead mass movements. At best, their roles are to consolidate the victories of mass movements. At worst, they block, betray or bargain away the political advantages, the moments which significant changes in public opinion make possible.

Read The Full Report

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 16, 2008) — AT&T met with representatives of the Alliance for Community Media (ACM) on Thursday, July 8, to demonstrate the company’s U-Verse system. The demonstration confirmed multiple problems with U-Verse which were acknowledged by AT&T’s representative, Chris Boyer. These include a delay in accessing PEG programming, inferior picture quality, lack of DVR functionality, and no support for closed captioning or second audio programming.

As reported by blogger, Geoff Daily, Boyer “admitted that the reason all PEG channels are lumped under channel 99 is because of technical limitations.” ACM Board Chair, Matt Schuster states “The channel 99 limitation is a result of a business decision by the company, not because of technological limitations.” Schuster adds, “Instead of engaging in damage control after the fact, AT&T should have worked with community access stations prior to rollout. AT&T’s sub-par system makes it unnecessarily difficult to view local community programming.”

Cable systems both large and small have historically carried PEG channels in an equivalent manner with commercial and other non-commercial channels. As a new competitor to cable, Verizon has done the same. Only AT&T’s U-Verse system has failed to meet the needs of local programmers.

Schuster said, “This degradation of PEG services reduces the benefit to many communities of the diverse, local programming provided through PEG channels. That contradicts the 1984 Cable Act goals that franchises be responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.”

The Alliance for Community Media is a national membership organization representing more than 3,000 PEG access centers across the nation. Local PEG programmers produce 20,000 hours of new programs per week, and serve more than 250,000 organizations annually through the efforts of an estimated 1.2 million volunteers.

For more information visit the Alliance For Community Media

France’s right-wing President, Sarkozy proposes that public television be funded by private broadcasters and telecom firms.

“France needs a balance between public channels and private channels,” Sarkozy said in a speech…

He’d be accused of being a socialist here.

Read The Full Report Here

- Posted by Greg Boozell

Good article touching on some forgotten history about the lineage of the whole ‘decency’ thing on the radio (and television), and the importance George Carlin held not only in the annals of comedy, but in our civic history as a society and what the value and role of speech is in our society. The article also features some comments by Tony Riddle, the former executive director of the Alliance for Community Media, a colleague and friend of mine, now serving as the general manager of WBAI radio in NYC.

As the encomiums for George Carlin have rolled in from stand-up legends, celebrities and scholars, his death at 71 has also been noted at a diminutive, iconic and iconoclastic radio station in Manhattan, WBAI-FM.

Its broadcast of the comedian’s “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” became a landmark moment in the history of free speech. In a 1978 milestone in the station’s contentious and unruly history, WBAI lost a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision that to this day has defined the power of the government over broadcast material it calls indecent.

————–

Now, broadcasting the seven words „would cost us $360,000 per incident “so those seven words would cost us $2.5 million,” Mr. Riddle said, about equal to the station‚s annual budget. “Now we’d be severely limited in taking a chance on protecting people’s free-speech rights.”

————–

The station that for generations has spoken truth to power is incongruously situated on the 10th floor of 120 Wall Street, and smack in the middle of the FM dial, at 99.5. Now in its 48th year, WBAI was both an expression, and ringleader, of the counterculture during its peak in the mid-1960s through the Vietnam War.

Observers have said that in its heyday, its on-air personalities, like Mr. Josephson, Steve Post and Bob Fass, extended the popularity of FM radio and explored the possibilities of the medium.

————–

Mr. Riddle, who joined the station in February, said that “it’s always difficult to run a democracy,” adding that “a lot of people believe in the kind of radio we provide,” since the station does not accept advertising, underwriting or grants.

Read the Full Article

The switch to digital TV is essentially a $70 billion gift from taxpayers to broadcasters. So, what will we get in return?

On Feb. 17, 2009, a massive but so far little-noted corporate theft of the public airwaves will be consummated as U.S. analog TV stations switch to digital TV (DTV) broadcasting. Digital broadcast technology enables three, four and sometimes more separate channels to be compressed into the space formerly occupied by a single old-fashioned analog TV channel. So when the transition from analog to digital TV occurs nationwide, each of the nation’s more than 1,700 broadcast TV license holders will suddenly have two, three or more additional channels, a gift from the taxpayers worth an estimated $70 billion.

Back in the mid-1990s, the owners of TV stations promised Congress that the advent of DTV would bring with it a wide selection of new programming, educational and children’s shows, frequently updated local newscasts and interactive content, all free, over the new digital broadcast airwaves. Of course, they lied.

Read The Full Report