Comcast-NBC Merger : Controlling Content and Delivery

Image from ZeroPaid.
The Comcast-NBC marriage:
The importance of Net Neutrality

With a monopoly on delivery, what’s to stop a new breed of ISPs/cable providers from dictating content to customers?

By Jared Moya / December 10, 2009

See 'Internet war: The fight for free access,' Below.

A scary thing happened last week when the Comcast Corporation, the largest cable provider in the U.S. and ISP to some 15 million customers, decided to to purchase NBC Universal in order to delve further upstream from the pipe that simply delivers content to the world where’s it created.

“We believe this venture represents a natural evolution in the world of communications and entertainment, a marketplace that becomes more open, more competitive, and more global every day,” it says. “The opportunity to combine these assets makes possible some innovative programming opportunities that will permit the new company to better serve the interests of many key segments of the viewing audience, including local viewers in the markets served by NBCU’s owned-and-operated stations, and the particular interests of Hispanics, African Americans, children and families, and other key audience segments. This combination also permits us to hasten the arrival of the multiplatform, ‘anytime, anywhere’ future that Americans want.”

In other words, it has seen the writing on the wall in terms of streaming video-on-demand services. Consumers increasingly want to watch content when and where they want.

However, the move means Comcast will control every step of the system from content creation to delivery, and could easily begin preventing customers from accessing competing content or charging them more to do so than they would normally as a sort of a penalty.

“While we believe that this transaction is, and will be determined to be, pro-competitive, pro-consumer, and strongly in the public interest, we recognize that competitive concerns will be raised about the combination of such significant multiplatform assets in a single company,” it adds. “Therefore, we also intend to make a number of affirmative voluntary commitments in our applications for approval that we believe will effectively address any such concerns.”

It leaves out the fact that none of its “commitments” say anything about guaranteeing online access to its competitors or allowing competing streaming services to exist on its network. Since streaming is the future of content delivery it’s important that equal access be guaranteed to all, especially since ISPs enjoy regional monopolies around the country (try finding more than one broadband provider in your area).

“I am not exaggerating when I say that Comcast’s proposed acquisition of NBC Universal poses a genuine threat to free expression and diversity of speech in our democratic society,” says Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a non-profit law firm and free speech advocacy organization that promotes freedom of expression, independent media, and low-cost, universal access to communications services.

“I believe that the sale should not be permitted. The deal is the first attempt at vertical integration of content and delivery in the broadband era. It presents antitrust and communications regulators with the challenge of addressing whether any one company should be allowed to hold dominant positions in both video and Internet delivery,” he says.

Exactly.

The easiest manifestation of the harm it could do to competitors is the simple withholding of NBC content from both standard cable and online competitors. It also has an inherent interest in making sure that competing video streaming services don’t succeed.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts says that “today NBC makes certain content available online and I can’t imagine we will change that process,” but we all know that could change with time. The primary concern of a business will always be profits, and it’s only a matter of time before Comcast begins attempting to maximize the potential of of NBC content by dictating the price and availability.

Gigi Sohn, executive director of Public Knowledge, a public interest advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the public interest in access to information, warns that the deal will ultimately harm consumer choice and result in higher fees for services.

“With all that programming under its control, Comcast will have every incentive to take its shows off of the Internet and force consumers to buy a cable subscription to get online access to that programming,” she said. “Want to watch reruns of 30 Rock? Buy a Comcast subscription.”

The whole affair makes Network Neutrality even more important. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski has already emphasized that we need to “safeguard the free and open Internet” by ensuring, among other things, that consumers must be able to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice.

Without it, Comcast will have a free hand to do as it pleases.

Stay tuned.

Source / ZeroPaid

Graphic from techrepublican.

Internet war:
The fight for free access

There is a silent battle occurring in Washington, D.C., over our ability to freely access and exchange information through our last unbiased medium, the Internet. The telecom industry is feverishly buying up policy-makers in an attempt to block new, unanimously approved FCC regulations on Internet service providers.

The new plan would ensure Internet users' equal rights to its content, while prohibiting broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from selectively blocking or slowing content and discriminating against competitors.

In retribution, the big telecom interests are sending a message using their highest paid member of Congress, Sen. John McCain, to submit the Internet Freedom Act, which is anything but. The act states the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."

So the FCC would not be allowed to be the FCC, giving service-providers freedom to control, without checks, any and all bandwidth, connection speed, content and applications.

Misleading policy makers and scare tactics should be ignored. FCC regulations would only affect the big Telecom interests and not the Internet itself. Opponents mistakenly claim regulations might slow innovation. Does this include censoring, blocking or stifling applications such as VoIP, Google Voice and legal peer-to-peer networking applications by companies such as AT&T and Comcast?

Regulation preventing such acts, according to a number of studies, will not only lower prices and guarantee higher performance overall, but open the web to more users -- allowing people to share ideas and programs and accelerating innovation and investment. AT&T's own two year experiment in 2006 with neutrality rules brought about greater increases in investment than any other ISP in America.

What deregulation means to these companies is not freedom from some fictitious dictatorial power but immunity from having to answer for their own irresponsible and inevitably oppressive actions. What has deregulation really given us, besides robbing us of laws designed to protect the environment, worker safety and consumer rights?

Michael A. Burger / CJOnline

• For previous Rag Blog articles about Net Neutrality, go here.

Thanks to Media Reform Daily / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Sen. Al Franken : The Internet is the Town Square

This may be the clearest, most useful exposition on Net Neutrality that I have yet seen.

-- Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog

The Internet:
It's not a truck, It's a town square

The Internet is a platform for speech, debate, creativity. And it is neutral. And government has a role to play in making sure it stays that way.

By Senator Al Franken / October 7, 2009

As you know, I got to the Senate a bit late.

But I didn’t get here too late. Because we’re debating issues of major consequence right now -- health care, the economy, the course of the war in Afghanistan. And one of the issues you don’t hear about as much -- but one that will impact our lives, our economy and, yes, the future of music -- is Net Neutrality.

Several years ago, in the middle-to-late 90s, I went and gave a speech to the folks at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. I remember asking what cool things they were working on.

One guy took me aside and told me he was working on an unmanned aerial vehicle the size of an insect. I was really excited about that, though I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen. But they did succeed in creating the ARPA-net forty years ago. And the ARPA-net grew into the Internet... which is almost as cool.

And today, the Internet is the town square. Thomas Jefferson famously said that given a choice between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he “would not hesitate to prefer the latter.” If he were here today, I think he’d see the Internet in much the same light.

Now, fortunately, we don’t have to make that choice because the Internet is a platform for speech, debate, creativity. And it is neutral.

And government has a role to play in making sure it stays that way. Let me add that this is the fundamental political philosophy that I bring as a senator to so many of our national challenges. It’s not government’s job to make sure that everyone gets to the finish line, but government does have a role to play in making sure everyone can at least get to the starting line.

That’s how the Internet developed. The FCC treated the Web as a common carrier similar to the phone – meaning that anyone had the right to access it however they wanted so long as they weren’t breaking the law.

But as high-speed Internet became available, the cable and telecom industries convinced the FCC to change the rules -- to give corporate Internet service providers the power to use “network management” as code for “finding ways to squeeze more cash out of their networks.” As a result, the freedom and openness that are the Internet’s hallmarks are being seriously challenged.

Moving at the same speed

Right now, a blog loads just as quickly as a corporate Web page. An e-mail from your mother comes through just as smoothly as a bill notification from your bank. An independent bookstore can process your order as quickly as Barnes & Noble. A garage band can stream its songs just as easily as a multi-platinum superband like REM can.

But recently, business executives from top ISPs have declared their interest in offering “prioritized” Internet service to companies that can pay for it. In other words, a company like Microsoft or Amazon could pay for its content to be delivered over a high-speed network -- relegating a blogger or a mom-and-pop business to the slow lane.

That would transform the Internet from a free, open and competitive playing field into a “pay-for-play” arena in which citizen bloggers, nonprofits and small businesses are simply muscled out by major media conglomerates. That would transform the World Wide Web into a system of separate and unequal networks.

Censoring the Net

And it raises two major issues, as I see it.

First, it raises the issue of censorship. Once service providers are in the business of deciding what kind of content moves at what speed, they come very close to deciding what kind of content moves at all.

Second, this is about entrepreneurship and innovation. Great innovations only take place on an even playing field, where the little guys can go head-to-head with the big guys. If we change the rules of the game to benefit the big guys, innovation will suffer.

So the issue here isn’t only what might be blocked, but what might never be developed in the first place. Let me talk for a minute about each.

First, censorship. Take a look at Iran. In Iran, every Internet provider uses filters to control the Web sites and e-mails that users can access. They use a technology called “Deep Packet Inspection” to filter every e-mail, Facebook post and Tweet that anyone sends, and –- in real time – block content that’s deemed objectionable.

You might say, “Well, that’s a terrible situation, but it’s happening in Iran, and we are not Iran.” No, we’re not Iran, but that isn’t stopping several companies from taking the same or similar technology for a test drive.

First, you may remember that in 2007, Verizon refused to allow the pro-choice group NARAL to send text messages to its supporters – even though they had signed up to receive them. Verizon’s explanation was that it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” messages. Like, for example, that a woman should have control of her reproductive system.

A second example: Comcast has used Deep Packet Inspection to block lawful peer-to-peer applications.

And you may remember that during a live Webcast of a 2007 Pearl Jam concert, AT&T killed the audio for a few beats. Turns out the missing lyrics were critical of President Bush.

ISPs want to profit from a closed Net

Stifling openness on the Internet isn’t always about censorship. In the future, it could simply be a product of business at work – of ISPs turning a profit. The chief technology officer for BellSouth recently said, “I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first class ticket... I can get two-day air or six-day ground.” He asserted that the Internet should be the same way.

The CEO of Verizon made the same point when he said, “We need to make sure there is the right economic model... we need to pay for the pipe.” And one provider proposed a system where consumers could pay a cheap monthly rate for light Internet use, a higher fee for heavier use... but with an exception for people who accessed only the content created by that network provider.

That’s a business motive, but it has the effect of limiting speech, and as far as I’m concerned, free speech limited -- or free speech delayed -- is the same as free speech denied. Because the truth is that the Internet is the town hall of the 21st century.

In the 1997 decision Reno v. ACLU, Justice Stevens wrote:

“Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.”

I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and on my fourth day in the Senate -- my first hearing on that committee -- we were dealing with the nomination of Judge (now Justice) Sonia Sotomayor.

I asked her specifically about whether she thought the American public has a compelling First Amendment interest in ensuring the Internet stays open and accessible. And if I could paraphrase her answer, it was “yes.” As noisy and messy as it may be, the Internet is a democracy. And because of that, it is a critical part of our democracy. But without strong legislation prohibiting ISPs from regulating content, that may not always be the case.

Let me add that among the people who would be hurt the most are rural users, who, like many in my home state of Minnesota, often only have access to a single ISP. If that rural ISP decides to favor or cut special deals with big companies -- or with the companies that ISP also owns –- then rural users would only receive the viewpoints that the ISP favors. ISP profit margins should never come at the cost of a free and open Internet.

The economic future of our country

While ISPs may benefit from a closed Internet, we all lose. And it’s not just the material that could be slowed or censored. It’s innovation itself.

In America, we think that an individual with a big idea is just as worthy of competing as a company with a big market share. But the loss of a neutral Internet means that the market is no longer competitive. It’s no longer a meritocracy.

Consider the case of YouTube. YouTube was founded in 2005 above a pizzeria in San Mateo, California. At the time, the most popular video application was something called Google Video -- an app that most people came to realize was slow and clunky.

Because it was so well designed, YouTube quickly gained a user base, and gradually overcame Google Video. As we know, Google actually bought YouTube and retired Google Video.

This all happened because YouTube and Google Video competed on the same playing field, accessed the same Internet, and, in a meritocratic system, consumers saw that YouTube was better. But in a world where Google could pay an ISP for “premium” access, Google Video could have secured priority status, leaving YouTube on a second-tier track. YouTube would have loaded too slowly to win viewers. We’d be stuck with Google Video.

Again, what’s at stake here isn’t just what could be taken away. It’s what could never be created in the first place.

The Internet has been a tremendous platform for innovation and entrepreneurship. Guaranteeing its continued success isn’t just about giving consumers better apps; it’s about the economic future of our country.

The FCC takes on Net Neutrality

Now, I know many of you in the music and entertainment industry are concerned about where Net Neutrality fits in with your efforts against piracy. Having spent much of my life as a writer and entertainer, I own copyrights, too, and I share your concerns.

But Net Neutrality is and must be explicitly a matter of protecting lawful content, applications and usage. Whether we do it through statute or regulation, ISPs must and will retain the right to combat unlawful usage of the Internet.

Now, how we do that technologically is an enormous question. You may remember when Sen. Ted Stevens insightfully pointed out that the Internet “is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a truck. It’s a series of tubes.”

In making that statement, I think Sen. Stevens illustrated why some members of Congress might not be the right people to answer this technological question. That’s why it is good news that the FCC is now taking the lead on this battle.

Recently, Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that the commission would be issuing pro-Net Neutrality regulations. The commission rules will emphasize nondiscrimination –- barring ISPs from favoring or disfavoring particular Internet content or applications –- and transparency, requiring ISPs to be open about their network management practices. And Genachowski’s right.

An ISP should not be able to prioritize certain traffic over other traffic. A company cannot pay to have a “fast track” over the Internet.

And we need to be serious about transparency. ISPs should have to disclose to consumers any practices that may affect communications between a user and an application, content or service provider. This ensures that when ISPs do take actions that slow down one content provider and speed up another, users will find out.

We also need to acknowledge that sometimes, it is citizens, and not the government, that are in the best position to protect the Internet. We need to empower Internet users to file complaints directly with the FCC, and to allow them to recover damages in certain cases.

Finally, and I think the FCC will agree with me on this one, we need to give the experts at the FCC the flexibility they need to solve this complicated problem.

So rest assured, even though Sen. Stevens is no longer here to lend us his “tube” expertise, I will be standing ready to work with knowledgeable leaders in Congress -- Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Snowe, Congressman Markey, and Congresswoman Eshoo -- to make sure we get it right.

For the first time, it looks like we might actually do this. The FCC is on board, and so are critical leaders in Congress.

Obama on Net Neutrality

In addition, President Obama has consistently voiced support for Net Neutrality. Recently, he put Net Neutrality at the top of his national innovation agenda. So although previous efforts to pass Net Neutrality have failed, we now have both a president and an FCC chairman who strongly support the cause.

This is not to say that this debate is over and won. Some of my colleagues have already introduced legislation to block Net Neutrality efforts. And just last week, a Washington Post editorial declared that “federal regulators should not be telling Internet service providers how to run their businesses,” and that Net Neutrality will “micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace.”

Ignore for a moment the irony that a leading newspaper would come out against a bill whose purpose includes protection of free speech, and let me say that Net Neutrality is not a matter of needless government intervention. It is a necessary response to verifiable instances of ISPs discriminating against users based on the applications they use or the content they access, and of ISPs voicing their support for a separate and unequal Internet.

It is a 21st-century reiteration of one of our most important constitutional rights –- the right to free speech. And it doesn’t interfere with the free market. It protects the free market.

A century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt wrote, “Above all else, we must strive to keep the highways of commerce open to all on equal terms.”

He may have been writing in a different time, and addressing different technology, but his purpose is just as relevant today.

[From a speech delivered by Sen. Franken at the Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.]

Sen. Al Franken on keeping a neutral net


Source / Save The Internet / freepress

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Net Neutrality : Next Target of Astroturf Groups?

"WWIII Propaganda Posters: Support Net Neutrality" by Brian Moore / Flickr.
Will ‘Astroturf’ groups block Net Neutrality reform?

It's no secret the five biggest telecom companies want Net Neutrality to disappear. All just happen to be members of a 'pro-consumer' group.

By Megan Tady / September 3, 2009

Chris, McGreal, a reporter for Britain’s Guardian newspaper, took to the road last month to report on how Americans living along Route 66 -- made famous in John Steinbeck’s fictional Grapes of Wrath journey -- are faring during the recession.

You might think McGreal quickly encountered “real Americans” protesting President Obama’s “socialist” healthcare agenda by hurling insults at town hall meetings. Cable news channels are full of these images, which together portray the United States as a giant angry grassroots rally against reform-minded policies.

Odd, then, that McGreal reports this:

The outbursts against President Obama’s healthcare plans filling television screens, with opponents calling him a Nazi and accusing him of planning death committees to do in old people, are to a large degree manufactured by the same people who use similar tactics to oppose abortion.

McGreal has it right: There is no genuine mass uprising against healthcare reform or climate change legislation. But the industry groups and corporations who benefit from the status quo—and thus have the most at stake in these debates—want us to think otherwise. And they’ve developed a slick way of manufacturing dissent: creating fake grassroots -- ”astroturf” -- organizations to do their bidding in our name.

Jim Hightower describes astroturf organizations as “the corporate version of grassroots…well-orchestrated PR efforts that put real folks out front, but are instigated, organized and funded by corporate interests and right-wing front groups.”

Astroturf groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks rent themselves out to combat policies that hurt major corporations, from ExxonMobile to AT&T. They were behind April’s Tea Bag rallies, which protested tax increases, and flew hot air balloons as part of a campaign to discredit climate change.

Now corporations -- AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Qwest -- are paying astroturf groups to derail one of the most important public policy initiatives of our time: Net Neutrality. The cable and telecom lobby is spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to become the Web’s new gatekeepers.

What is Net Neutrality?

Astroturf groups have set their sights on blocking the passage of a valuable new bill called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. The bill, introduced into the House in early August, would protect the Internet from telecommunications and cable companies who want to control access to online content—and thereby make more money.

The principle that protects the Internet freedom we now enjoy is Net Neutrality, which leaves us free to visit any website and create and share anything we can imagine. This “open” platform allows us to bypass the old corporate gatekeepers to create our own entertainment, and organize for social change without fearing that an Internet service provider like Comcast or AT&T will block our messages because they disagree with our politics.

Net Neutrality as a baseline rule for the Internet was stripped away by a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (PDF link) that effectively allowed phone and cable companies to discriminate against websites, applications or services that they didn’t like.

We must restore this guiding principle to protect and ensure a free-flowing Web for all. The new legislation would mandate that all ISPs adhere to Net Neutrality and refrain from controlling, blocking or slowing down online content.

Rolling out the astroturf

So who exactly is shilling for industry? Let’s connect the dots.

It’s no secret the five biggest cable and telecommunications companies want Net Neutrality to disappear. All five just happen to be members of the “pro-consumer” (read: astroturf) group NetCompetition.org, which is trying to make this nasty problem go away for them. Scott Cleland, who heads the operation, has made it his job to bash Net Neutrality, even likening it to socialism: “Just like the Soviet socialists, the net neutrality movement blatantly misrepresents the facts.”

And when FreedomWorks isn’t throwing a tea party, they’re throwing a tantrum about Net Neutrality. Take it from Dick Armey, the former House majority leader who leads the group: “The proponents of Net Neutrality have some very nice sound bites and flowery talking points that would lead you to believe that it’s about keeping the Internet free,” he writes. “I assure you nothing could be further from the truth.”

Who has paid FreedomWorks bills? AT&T.

Meanwhile, the American Consumer Institute -- doesn’t that sound innocuous -- is questioning the new Net Neutrality bill for consumers. Stephen Pociask, a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic, is behind the site.

In 2006, when a similar Net Neutrality bill was introduced, this group actively worked to get lawmakers to vote against it.

Speak out or cede control

What’s the difference between a real grassroots organization and a fake one? Astroturf groups are paid shills who don’t openly disclose their funding sources, pretend they’re taking a stance in the public’s interest and manufacture events to make them appear to be backed by a public majority.

For too long, special interest money has polluted the waters of public discourse in America. And unfortunately, our entrenched corporate media system is all too willing to repeat astroturf messages, thereby legitimizing them and stifling genuine debate.

The open Internet lets us speak for ourselves—unlike nearly all other media platforms. If we speak out in support of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act and drown out the din of astroturf groups and industry lobbyists, it will remain that way.

[Megan Tady is a campaign coordinator and writer for Free Press, the national, nonprofit media reform organization, and a former National Political Reporter for InTheseTimes.com.]

Source / In These Times

Also see Unmasking Astroturf: Smear Campaigns Threaten Health Care and Net Neutrality by Timothy Karr / Free Press / AlterNet / August 21, 2009

And Astroturf Groups Try to Enlist Conservatives to Oppose Net Neutrality by Philip Dampier / Save the Internet / August 5, 2009

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Democrats Are Letting Net Neutrality Die

Graphic from techrepublican.

[Network neutrality is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.]

New Bosses Same As the Old Bosses

By Jason Lee Miller / April 15, 2009

Here was what was supposed to happen: With telco-friendly Republican Congress members swept out of the way, Democrats would usher in legislation enshrining Network Neutrality principles and give the FCC the power to enforce them.

Here’s what happened (is happening) instead: The most powerful Net Neutrality supporters (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton) are kicked upstairs while cable-and-Hollywood-friendly Democrats are killing Network Neutrality legislation in committees.

Meanwhile, both telecom and cable companies are emboldened by the legislation’s quiet death, the deafening sound of non-action covered up nicely by the economic crisis, and both industries are soothed by interim FCC commissioner Michael Copps’ toothless proposal for a fifth unenforceable principle regarding network discrimination.

The Democrat rope-a-dope strategy of the last few years is coming back around to kill Net Neutrality. The initial plan was simply to let Republicans have enough rope to hang themselves. Congressional Democrats ignored calls for investigations and impeachment of members of the Bush Administration because doing so allowed them to drop all blame square on their opponents’ shoulders for everything without putting themselves under undue scrutiny. A few years of doing absolutely nothing was tantamount to lying low while Republicans destroyed themselves so Democrats could take over. . . and continue to do nothing.

It’s a genius plan until people start watching and learning about the new bosses and start understanding how much they look like the old bosses. The Internet Freedom and Preservation Act of 2006, 2007, 2008? All killed by assassins with supposedly opposing goals.

The Senate version is suspicously stuck in a committee of formerly staunch proponents. The House version is under the committee supervision of net neutrality opponent Joe Barton (R-TX) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), who represents West Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

We’re not surprised by Barton, a Texas Republican funded by Comcast and AT&T -- that’s historical par for the course. But Waxman’s a Democrat, and Democrats are supposedly pro-net neutrality. Meanwhile, we should also be surprised by Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) lame and failed attempt to sneak in “reasonable network management” provisions into the economic stimulus package as Waxman looked the other way.

So what’s going on with our supposed neutral net champions? The answer lies in the other industries opposed to net neutrality, namely the Entertainment industry, the principals of which happen to live in Waxman’s and Feinstein’s districts and donate heavily to their campaigns. Waxman gets lots of money from the cable industry, including TimeWarner and Disney. Feinstein’s donors include Time Warner and Disney as well, but also Qualcomm and GE (which owns NBC).

In the earlier days of the Net Neutrality debate, the argument centered on very technical issues lost on the general public and focused heavily on telecommunications companies like Verizon and AT&T, and some on Comcast. (Though Ted Stevens famously issued a net neutrality push poll asking constituents if they wanted more TV or less TV.)

As it progresses it becomes less about network issues (as if it ever really was about network issues) and more about Web video. Right now, very large, very wealthy, very powerful entities are battling for control of what will become the new TV (and radio and newspaper). It’s not about bandwidth or network operation. It’s about controlling Web media, especially video.

Recently we learned from the CEO of a cable company who says American cable providers won’t allow speeds they’re capable of delivering because they’re afraid people will cancel their cable TV subscriptions. TimeWarner, a maker of films and television content as well as a cable Internet and TV provider, is toeing the line with download caps limiting how much video consumers can download.

AT&T on the other side, quietly updated its terms of wireless service to prevent video transfers. AT&T, of course, is also getting into the video content delivery game with its U-Verse. Despite these most recent instances loudly protested, legislators have cited lack of complaints of abuse as the reason why they’ve backed off. Even former neutral net proponent John Conyers (D-MI) suddenly thinks it’s a non-issue. It’d be nice if we could look at his top donors and not see AT&T, TimeWarner, Sprint, and Cable, but sure enough, there they are, as predictable as the sunset.

You might have also noticed, like we have, that while anything the RIAA and the MPAA want goes right through Congress like crap through a goose, network neutrality legislation (wanted by the people who currently have no money) languishes and dies in committee.

With a setup like this, good luck getting net neutrality legislation passed this year or the next. Maybe in 2010 the country will suddenly favor independents and third parties so the do-nothing bums still remaining will be thrown out. But that may be overly optimistic—the people will likely still be broke by then, and its money that wins elections, and apparently what runs Congress.

Source / WebProNews

Thanks to Media Reform Daily / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

FCC : The Controversial Legacy of Chairman Martin

FCC Chair Kevin Martin leaves a mixed legacy.
'“For a deregulator, he was amazingly pro-consumer in his interventions,” said Gene Kimmelman, of Consumers Union. “Nobody thought he was going to be like this.”'

By John Dunbar / January 15, 2009

WASHINGTON – Among the legions of predictable, starched-shirt regulators that populate Washington, outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has been a conundrum.

Martin, who announced this week he will step down from the commission on inauguration day, is a self-described free-market Republican. Yet he has nevertheless used his considerable power to push consumer-friendly policies that angered cable television companies, like “a la carte” pricing that would allow customers to select and pay only for the channels they really want. In addition, he pried open wireless networks, protected Internet users from unequal treatment by service providers, and paved the way for a new generation of wireless Internet devices.

But Martin has also toed the deregulatory GOP line by backing major corporate mergers, removing regulations on giant telecommunications companies, and enforcing strict limits on racy content on television.

While those positions may seem contradictory, telecommunications veterans say there is a common thread — he has fought consistently to open markets to new competitors. That may be the most important legacy of Martin’s almost four years as chairman. Whether anyone remembers it, though, is another question.

What will be remembered is Martin’s controversial bedside manner. A congressional report depicts Martin as running the FCC in a Machiavellian fashion, fostering a climate of “deception and distrust.” The report blasted the chairman for creating a “climate of fear” at the agency and withholding information from other commissioners and staff to further his agenda. In his almost four years at the helm, in fact, the chairman managed to aggravate a remarkable cross-section of politicians, consumer advocates, industry lobbyists, and agency employees.

“People,” said Martin, “have a tendency to remember all the things they are mad at you about.”

The FCC chairman traditionally leaves the commission when a new president takes power. Martin announced he would resign at his final meeting Thursday, and allowed his young son Luke, 3, to bang the gavel for him.

Martin’s successor, according to people briefed by the Obama transition team, will be Julius Genachowski, a technology entrepreneur and former Harvard classmate of Obama’s. Genachowski’s first order of business will be overseeing the transition of the nation’s broadcasters to digital broadcasting on February 17. President-elect Obama wants to delay the switch.

Martin will take a position at the Aspen Institute, a nonprofit leadership training organization and think tank that has become popular place to work for former FCC chairmen, such as Michael Powell and William Kennard.

Contrary from the Beginning

Martin’s contentious tenure has been full of surprises. His habit of occasionally siding with the two Democrats against his fellow Republicans on the five-member commission could hardly have been predicted, given his mainstream GOP background. The 42-year-old North Carolina native came to the commission with both political connections and hands-on experience in the arcane world of telecommunications regulation.

He is former deputy general counsel for the 2000 George W. Bush campaign and also served as legal adviser for former Republican FCC commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth.

Bush named Martin to the commission in 2001. In 2003, Martin gave a glimpse of his partisan independence in a highly publicized vote regarding local telephone competition. Martin sided with the two commission Democrats against a proposal by then-Republican chairman Michael Powell to partially deregulate dominant local telephone carriers. It was a stinging defeat for Powell and his supporters. Yet in the same proceeding, Martin also supported less regulation of Internet services.

Martin would succeed Powell as chairman in March 2005.

A la Carte and the Cable Crusade

Not long after taking over as chairman, Martin began pushing the cable companies to sell channels on an “a la carte” basis. Cable systems normally sell their service to customers in tiers, or program packages, at a flat rate. Each tier includes a substantial group of channels. It is a carefully calibrated arrangement between operators and programmers that has generated steady profits for decades. Martin wants cable companies to sell programming on a per-channel basis, arguing that under the current system, viewers are stuck paying for channels they do not want and may not want their children to see. But the cable companies are vigorously opposed to a la carte.

Under Powell, the FCC released a study that said a la carte pricing would raise prices for the average customer. Under Martin, a second report was released, refuting the previous study. This one said there would be “substantial consumer benefits” in an a la carte world.

“We’ve seen decreases in wireless prices, long distance calls, local calls, and international calls,” Martin said. “If you look at broadband prices, with competition primarily cable and telephone, you’ve actually seen dramatic price declines in broadband services since 2001.”

But cable prices have “skyrocketed” in the past decade, he said. “Consumers are also forced to purchase bigger and bigger bundles of channels, regardless of which ones they may actually want.”

Martin’s claims about prices are “distorted, disingenuous, and no longer relevant” in a market where voice, video, and Internet services are bundled together, said Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. When considering all services, prices have actually dropped, he said.

Despite Martin’s efforts and some support on Capitol Hill, a la carte pricing never became a reality during his tenure.

Anti-Cable or Pro-Bell?

In the modern telecommunications era, what’s bad for cable is often good for traditional telecommunications companies, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. The two industries compete directly. Cable companies are offering phone service while phone companies are offering television service, and each side is looking for any edge it can get.

Some in the cable industry say Martin has favored the traditional telecom giants over cable companies. In late 2006, Martin worked hard to push through AT&T’s buyout of BellSouth Corp., the largest telecommunications merger in history. The deal faced heavy opposition from consumer groups and smaller telephone companies who feared the re-emergence of the old Ma Bell monopoly.

Around the same time, Martin also pushed through a proposal that would help Verizon and AT&T provide television service in local markets more quickly. Democrats opposed the move as did community advocates. Cable companies sign agreements with local governments to provide service. The new FCC rules would strip away some of the bargaining power of small communities who want cable operators to provide public access channels, city lawyers said.

He kept up the pressure on cable throughout his tenure. Martin re-established a national subscribership cap on cable companies. No single operator is allowed to reach more than 30 percent of pay-television households nationwide. The rule prevents the largest cable companies, like Comcast Corp., from growing much larger.

Martin also attempted — ultimately unsuccessfully — to push through a report that showed the industry had achieved a saturation level nationally that would trigger a clause in federal law allowing for more government regulation. And he granted requests from AT&T and Verizon to shed certain regulatory requirements. For example, the FCC allowed AT&T relief from certain accounting reporting rules.

Martin denies that he favors AT&T and Verizon over the cable industry. “I’ve actually moved on just as many orders trying to facilitate and open up the voice market to cable competition as we have video markets to video competition for the telephone companies,” he said.

Open Access

Among the FCC’s most important tasks is allocating radio frequencies to cell phone companies and other commercial users. In 2008, an extremely valuable portion of this radio spectrum, to be vacated by television broadcasters, was auctioned. But rather than simply sell off the spectrum to the highest bidders, Martin applied restrictions on how some of it could be used.

For instance, he applied a so-called “open access” provision, meaning the winner of one large block of the spectrum was required to allow customers to use any kind of device or software they want, as long as it did not endanger the network. Until the FCC action, the cell phone industry in the United States was a closed system. Customers were stuck using phones and software applications provided by service providers.

Martin prevailed, joined by the two commission Democrats and Republican commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate.

For a Republican like Martin to have gone down that road, said telecommunications analyst Jessica Zufolo of Medley Global Advisors, was “unprecedented.” The wireless industry opposed the rules, and ended up filing a suit in federal court seeking to get them tossed out. The suit was dropped in November.

Meanwhile, AT&T and Verizon ended up winning about 80 percent of the spectrum, which raised more questions — this time about whether the wireless industry is competitive enough.

Media Ownership and Network Neutrality

But allocating radio spectrum was hardly the only bruising battle in which Martin engaged. To the surprise of many, in 2007 the chairman also tackled a rewrite of rules restricting media ownership — a sort of third rail of FCC politics.

After months of hearings staged across the country, Martin proposed the loosening of a single rule — the ban on newspapers owning television and broadcast stations in the largest markets. It was a modest move compared to the massive deregulation that was approved in 2003, a decision that was later largely invalidated in federal court.

In this case, Martin was joined by his two Republican colleagues in a 3-2 vote. Democratic commissioner Michael Copps said it was a decision that would “make George Orwell proud.”

Not long after, however, Martin found himself friends with the Democratic commissioners again. Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company and a major provider of high-speed Internet service, was accused of blocking “peer-to-peer” traffic on its network. Peer-to-peer software is often used to upload very large video files. Comcast’s action was in violation of the agency’s policy statement on “network neutrality,” Martin said.

In a highly publicized vote, Martin joined with the two Democrats in finding the company guilty, though no fine was issued. Comcast, which maintained that the policy statement was not enforceable, said that it had merely delayed traffic from users who pump a disproportionately high amount of data through the network, to the detriment of other customers. Comcast sued, and the case is ongoing.

There is some disagreement about the lasting significance of the FCC action — but the bottom line, most agree, is that a precedent was set allowing the agency to intervene when it determines Internet providers are operating networks in a discriminatory fashion.

Profanity Debate Hits High Court

The decision in the Comcast court case is highly anticipated, but it is not the most high-profile FCC policy under judicial review.

A federal appeals court in June 2007 invalidated the agency’s policy on what constitutes indecent speech on the airwaves. Martin and the agency sought a review by the Supreme Court, which has taken the case. It will be the high court’s first review of broadcast indecency in more than 30 years, and it could rule as early as March.

The issue is over so-called “fleeting expletives.” The court is being asked to evaluate the agency’s position that the “F-word” and the “S-word” are inherently indecent and deserving of sanction in virtually any context. Broadcasters say the agency’s interpretation of what constitutes indecent content has been inconsistent and unconstitutional, and has chilled speech.

Martin has been a social conservative on broadcast speech issues. He has also complained about violent content on television as well as advertising he claims has contributed to an obesity epidemic among the nation’s children.

“I come from a very family-oriented background. I’m concerned about the impact the media has on our children,” he said. “We must have limits that distinguish what is appropriate from what is not appropriate in mainstream media where children are likely to be watching television.”

The Investigation

While many of the debates during Martin’s tenure involved substantive disagreements, it was the chairman’s style, above all, that got him into trouble. It all seemed to come to a head at a November 2007 meeting, when he tried to present a statistical report demonstrating that the cable television industry had surpassed a subscription saturation threshold that might trigger additional government regulation.

In a highly rancorous meeting, he was accused of selective use of data, and after other commissioners cried foul, he withdrew the report.

That meeting, in addition to other complaints about how Martin ran the commission, sparked a bipartisan investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Investigators spent nearly a year looking into Martin’s regime, reviewing 95 boxes of documents and conducting 73 interviews of former FCC employees. No hearings were conducted, nor was there a vote on the report. Republicans opted not to join in the ultimate findings. The report, released in December, was scathing.

Singling out the a la carte and cable subscribership issues specifically, the report pointed to instances in which the chairman “manipulated, withheld, or suppressed data, reports, and other information.” Investigators said Martin possessed a “heavy handed, opaque, and non-collegial management style” that had “created distrust, suspicion, and turmoil among the five current commissioners.”

Martin called the report “old-style politics” and said many of the specific criticisms were about problems that occurred prior to his chairmanship. And Martin said he did not handle information any differently than it had been handled under previous chairmen at the agency.

But current and previous FCC staffers say Martin could be maddening to deal with. He seemed to plot a course of action and stick to it regardless of the introduction of any new facts, they contended. “In government it’s important how you go about your decision making,” said one FCC official who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the press. “It’s not fixed from the very beginning.” With Martin, “not only was it fixed, he had a position on essentially everything, and he linked everything together in order to maximize leverage.”

Martin disputes this, pointing to the wireless auction as an example. He was initially opposed to the open-access requirement, he said, but after hearing from consumer groups and others, he changed his mind.

Last Flurry Falls Short

Martin seemed mostly undeterred by the congressional report. In fact, he was determined to go out with a flourish as FCC chief by pushing through plans to vastly expand access to high-speed Internet service.

One initiative — to use the frequencies that exist between television channels for new wireless devices to connect to the Internet — was successful, despite relentless opposition from the broadcast lobby.

Martin also made some progress reforming the Universal Service Fund — a giant pot of money paid into by phone subscribers to subsidize phone service in rural areas. Martin wanted to reform the fund and use it to provide Internet service in those areas. In the end, he was able to get the commission to cap the growth in one part of it and convince the agency to look into comprehensive reforms.

Martin was unable, however, to secure support from either party for his boldest broadband initiative. He wanted to auction off a swath of airwaves and require a portion be used to provide free wireless broadband access to most of the population. But with time running out, President Bush’s Commerce Department and incoming chairmen of both House and Senate committees that oversee the FCC recommended that he not pursue the plan.

Legacy of Openness

Looking back, Martin says he is most proud of his efforts to provide wireless broadband access to consumers and crack open those networks to competing devices and applications. His philosophy, he said, has been that “we’ll rely upon the markets to determine competition to a large extent, but we must be willing to step in when the market cannot fix itself.”

Even some of Martin’s fiercest critics say he has followed through on those commitments.

“For a deregulator, he was amazingly pro-consumer in his interventions,” said Gene Kimmelman, vice president of international affairs for Consumers Union. “Surprisingly pro-consumer. Nobody thought he was going to be like this.”

As for the controversies, Martin remains philosophical.

“I am willing to push the fact that we need to make decisions. I am willing to make very hard decisions,” he said. “And in the past, some commissioners haven’t wanted to make the difficult decisions.”

[John Dunbar is a senior fellow at the Center for Public Integrity.]

Source / The Center for Public Integrity

Also see House Democrats call FCC under Martin 'dysfunctional' Orbitcast / with link to Congressional Report.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Net Neutrality: Why You Should Give a Damn

Photo by Sean Nel.
'Too much creative control is in the hands of too few people who aren't creative'
By Michael Janover / August 16, 2008

OK, I'm old. I was around when Channel 2 went on the air in Denver in the early 50's and brought us Blinky the Clown. It was exciting. Television. In Colorado!

In the mid-60s, cable TV and the dish staked their claims, and folks in the mountains could finally see Star Trek and Mary Tyler Moore. A whole new world was opening, no longer limited by four or five basic channels. Cable and satellite promised real choice. Hundreds of channels! Wow! You could see anything!

So what happened to all the choices?

Why is it that TV and the movies are always the same old, same old?

For one thing, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made it possible to merge control of the television and film industries into fewer and fewer networks. What started out as infinite possibilities gradually became three super networks. These entities gobbled up the studio system and the cable channels. Creative decisions were gradually assumed by corporate boards that prefer safe, tested and bland to innovative, daring and dramatic. It's one of the reasons hard news became infotainment, and rich, life-changing drama is now "reality" programming.

Too much creative control is in the hands of too few people who aren't creative.

The beginning of the 80s was the start of the Computer Age. I went out and bought a Kaypro, a clunky box, with black screen and glowing green text. It was great. Totally cutting edge.

Computers became more wonderful with color graphics and the mouse thingy, but the most amazing and subversive change was INTERNET. In a few short years, it turned the planet into one big neighborhood; and with broadband access, it also offered interactivity.

We are no longer simple couch potatoes in front of the living room TV. Today, we're interactive potatoes and use computers to communicate, shop, or read and comment about everything from elections to Dancing With the Stars. We converse with people around the country and world as if they lived across the street. How quaint and microscopic those "hundreds of channels" seem now.

Blogs and YouTube are the new political language. They were vital in the Writer's Guild's recent successful struggle with management - the very people who own the mainstream media. Truth is, the Internet does more to democratize the world than any of the wars currently being waged. It truly offers an infinity of choices that TV can't deliver, and freedom of interactivity that telephones only dream of.

Something this massive and good just begs for someone to control it, don't you think?

Well, that group has surfaced. It's not the Chinese government, not even your government. No, it's the telecommunications companies. The same folks who offer you three-tiered packages of programming instead of just charging you for the shows you want to see; the same people who offer expensive long distance packages when you can do better for next to nothing over the Internet; and the same people who want immunity from prosecution for accidentally illegally wiretapping millions of our phone conversations.

Since the telecoms deliver the Internet to you, they think the government should grant them the power to control how you use it. They want to make more money and put limits on what you see and how you see it. In their world, websites should be charged for the privilege of being seen by their customers. And sites should pay extra for making it possible for consumers to download their material faster (-- by removing the telecom's artificial restraints). Failure to pay these tolls results in your site not being seen, or in ultra-lengthy download times that drive impatient users elsewhere.

Imagine going online to CNN or to download music or watch an old TV show, but the feed is so slow that it no longer works properly. The grass on your lawn is growing faster. Why? Because someone didn't pay tacked-on fees to the local cable or phone company, and the feed was restricted.

The Telecoms are spending millions to convince Congressional candidates that giving them control makes for a less expensive, better Internet. As you read this, they’re donating money like there's no tomorrow, because after this election, the new Congress will be forced to decide if Telecoms should be given this power.

"Net Neutrality" basically means "Leave the Internet alone," and it's the battle cry for those who think handing over management and control of information to a few mega-corporations is the worst possible idea.

Net Neutrality isn't another "nutty left wing crusade." Internet giants like Google and Microsoft, consumer advocates such as Consumer Reports, small businesses who might be relegated to the slow lane, and iPod users who might find it harder to download tunes -- all want to maintain Net Neutrality.

"Maintain" is the magic word. Net Neutrality doesn't ask for new regulations; it only wants to be sure that the freedom we already have is preserved. If you believe in a true open market and don't want to give your freedom of choice to some corporate Big Brother, if you don't want your Internet experience censored or restricted, if you enjoy watching YouTube or visiting Facebook without limitations - you probably support Net Neutrality without even realizing it.

It's time for you to speak up and ask a few questions. Now is when you have the clout. Does your Senate candidate support maintaining freedom of the Internet - or increasing profits for the Telecoms? If you don't know, find out.

For more detailed information on the fight to save the Internet, please check out www.freepress.net/files/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf, a fact sheet put together by Free Press, the Consumers Union, and Consumer Federation of America.

[Michael Janover grew up in Denver and went to school and graduated from CU in Boulder in 1967. He’s been a WGA writer since 1978, worked for HAWAII 5-O, Wide World of Disney and wrote THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT while in Hollywood. He also helped start the Colorado Film School in Aurora.]

© Rocky Mountain News

Source / Rocky Mountain News

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Stop the New FISA

Allowing the new surveillance law to stand would seriously cripple our free press
by Chris Hedges / July 11, 2008

If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday — giving the U.S. government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans — is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society.

The new FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance. It allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The court will not be told specifics about who will be wiretapped, which means the law provides woefully inadequate safeguards to protect innocent people whose communications are caught up in the government’s dragnet surveillance program

The law, passed under the guise of national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country. There is no question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans and those overseas. Those communications can be stored indefinitely and disseminated, not just to the U.S. government but to other governments.

This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours. It will hang like the sword of Damocles over all who dare to defy the official versions of events. It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

I have joined an ACLU lawsuit challenging the new law along with other journalists, human rights organizations and defense attorneys who also rely on confidentiality to do their work. I have joined not only because this law takes aim at my work but because I believe it signals a serious erosion of safeguards that make possible our democratic state. Laws and their just application are the only protection we have as citizens. Once the law is changed to permit the impermissible, we have no recourse with which to fight back.

I spent nearly 20 years as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, as well as other news organizations. I covered the conflict in the Middle East for seven years. I have friends and colleagues in Jerusalem, Gaza, Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Baghdad and Beirut. I could easily be one of those innocent Americans who are spied on under the government’s new surveillance authority.

The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.

What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man’s story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. Under this law, all those who hold information that could embarrass and expose the lies of those in power will have similar fears. Confidentiality, and the understanding that as a reporter I will honor this confidentiality, permits a free press to function. Take it away and a free press withers and dies.

I know the cost of terrorism and the consequences of war. I have investigated Al Qaeda’s operation in Europe and have covered numerous conflicts. The monitoring of suspected terrorists, with proper oversight, is a crucial part of our national security. But this law is not about keeping us safe, which can — and should — be done in a constitutional manner and with judicial oversight. It is about using terrorism as a pretext to permit wholesale spying and to silence voices that will allow us to maintain an open society.

Chris Hedges was part of the team of New York Times reporters who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for reporting on global terrorism. He is the author of many books, including “War Is the Force that Gives Us Meaning.”

Source. / CommonDreams

Also go toThe Bush Administration Continues Looking Like that of Richard Nixon by Gary Ater / American Chronicle

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

FISA Bill Challenged in Court

President Bush, in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, called the wiretapping bill "long overdue" and crucial to national security. Photo by Brendan Smialowski / NYT.
Bush Signs Spy Bill, ACLU Sues
By Ryan Singel / July 10, 2008

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit Thursday over a controversial wiretapping law, challenging the constitutionality of the expanded spy powers Congress granted to the president on Wednesday.

The federal lawsuit was filed with the court just hours after Bush signed the bill into law.

The ACLU is suing on behalf of journalist and human rights groups, asking the court put a halt to Congress's legalization of Bush's formerly secret warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU contends (.pdf) the expanded spying power violates the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

On Wednesday, the Senate gave final congressional approval to a massive expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, finishing a year of debate over how far the U.S. government should be able to conduct blanket surveillance using telecom facilities inside the United States.

In passing the FISA Amendments Act, Congress gave the executive branch the power to order Google, AT&T and Yahoo to forward to the government all e-mails, phone calls and text messages where one party to the conversation is thought to be overseas. President Bush signed the bill into law Thursday morning, describing it as a bill that "protect[s] the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence."

The ACLU contends those blanket powers to grab international communications of Americans without specific court orders violate the Fourth Amendment and would stymie journalists who often speak to confidential sources outside the country.

Plaintiff Naomi Klein, the liberal columnist and author, said the surveillance would compromise her writing about international issues.

"If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," Klein said.

Longtime foreign correspondent Christopher Hedges admits that surveillance is not a new obstacle for journalists, but says this goes a step too far.

"There is a lot of monitoring that goes on especially when you are overseas," Hedges said. "But this creates a further erosion in my ability to work as a journalist."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Thursday, asks the judge to stay the implementation of the new powers, until its constitutionality is determined.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has spearheaded the still ongoing lawsuits against the nation's telecoms, will challenge the provision of the bill that gives retroactive amnesty to telecoms that are being sued for helping the government spy on Americans without warrants.

They argue that Congress's attempt to have citizen lawsuits dismissed violates the separation of powers.

But the San Francisco-based online rights group also announced in a fund-raising letter on Thursday that it would also challenge the constitutionality of the bill's expanded spying powers.

"We are also preparing a new case against the government for its warrantless wiretapping, past, present and future," said EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston, who said the details were being withheld to keep the element of surprise.

"But suffice to say it will be quite different from the other cases against the government that have been filed so far," Bankston said. "Like with our case against AT&T, however, the ultimate goal will be the same: to halt the mass interception of Americans' communications and to dismantle the dragnet spying network that was first exposed by our witness, AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein."

Source. / Wired.com

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Barack Obama on FISA, Telecoms

Today, in response to those of us who have strongly disagreed with his position on the FISA legislation, Barack Obama posted the following message on mybarackobama.com.

My position on FISA
By Barack Obama / July 4, 2008

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

Source. / The Huffington Post

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

AT&T Whistleblower on Congress and FISA

Mark Klein in the offices of his lawyers in San Francisco. Photo by Ryan Singel / Wired.com.
Says Spy Bill Creates 'Infrastructure
for a Police State'
By Ryan Singel / June 27, 2008

Mark Klein, the retired AT&T engineer who stepped forward with the technical documents at the heart of the anti-wiretapping case against AT&T, is furious at the Senate's vote on Wednesday night to hold a vote on a bill intended to put an end to that lawsuit and more than 30 others.

[Wednesday]'s vote by Congress effectively gives retroactive immunity to the telecom companies and endorses an all-powerful president. It’s a Congressional coup against the Constitution.

The Democratic leadership is touting the deal as a "compromise," but in fact they have endorsed the infamous Nuremberg defense: "Just following orders." The judge can only check their paperwork. This cynical deal is a Democratic exercise in deceit and cowardice.

Klein saw a network monitoring room being built in AT&T's internet switching center that only NSA-approved techs had access to. He squirreled away documents and then presented them to the press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation after news of the government's warrantless wiretapping program broke.

Wired.com independently acquired a copy of the documents (.pdf) -- which were under court seal -- and published the wiring documents in May 2006 so that they could be evaluated.

The lawsuit that resulted from his documents is now waiting on the 9th U.S. Appeals Court to rule on whether it can proceed despite the government saying the whole matter is a state secret. A lower court judge ruled that it could, because the government admitted the program existed and that the courts could handle evidence safely and in secret.

But the appeals court ruling will likely never see the light of day, since the Senate is set to vote on July 8 on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which also largely legalizes Bush's warrantless wiretapping program by expanding how the government can wiretap from inside the United States without getting individualized court orders.

Klein continues:

Congress has made the FISA law a dead letter--such a law is useless if the president can break it with impunity. Thus the Democrats have surreptitiously repudiated the main reform of the post-Watergate era and adopted Nixon’s line: "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." This is the judicial logic of a dictatorship.

The surveillance system now approved by Congress provides the physical apparatus for the government to collect and store a huge database on virtually the entire population, available for data mining whenever the government wants to target its political opponents at any given moment—all in the hands of an unrestrained executive power. It is the infrastructure for a police state.

Neither the House nor the Senate has had Klein testify, nor have telecom executives testified in open session about their participation.

The bill forces the district court judge handling the consolidated cases against telecoms to dismiss the suits if the Attorney General certifies that a government official sent a written request to a phone or internet provider, saying that the President approved the program and his lawyers deemed it legal. Judge Vaughn Walker of the California Northern District can ask to see the paperwork, but would not be given leeway to decide if the program was legal.

Source. / Wired.com

Thanks to Dennis Thompson / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Telecom Donations Tied to FISA Vote

Supporters of the spying bill received twice
the contributions as those against it.
By Mike Lillis / June 24, 2008

When scores of House Democrats joined Republicans last week to reauthorize a controversial White House spying program, many critics attributed that support to election-year jitters. But as liberal voters continue to bash Democrats on the issue, some campaign finance reformers charge that political contributions from the telecom industry, which benefited handsomely under the bill, probably also swayed votes

In an analysis released Tuesday, Maplight.org, a nonprofit campaign finance watchdog group, found that lawmakers voting Friday in support of the wiretap deal averaged roughly twice the donations from the nation's leading telecoms - Verizon, Sprint and AT&T - over the last three years as those voting against it.

The figures might not have raised eyebrows except that the proposal contained a gift for the industry, effectively granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecoms that enabled the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. The immunity provision - blasted by civil libertarians for putting industry concerns above Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure - rescues the companies from the roughly 40 lawsuits pending against them. Some money-in-politics watchdogs say the connection between the contributions and votes is no accident.

The money-in-politics debate is hardly new to Washington, but it has taken on greater urgency as both political contributions and federal budgets grow larger with each passing year. Under the current system, lawmakers have become ever more reliant on campaign coffers to maintain their hold on power. Industry, meanwhile, is under constant pressure to be at the negotiation table when related legislation is being crafted on Capitol Hill. Money is often the quickest way to gain that seat. This combination of factors has created a near symbiotic relationship between Congress and industry, often lending a sense that business interests take priority over citizens' concerns.

"It's not a dollar given and a vote bought," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit campaign finance reform advocate, "but it is a system where large industries can gain influence and direct how policy is decided."

The shame, McGehee said, is that the campaign-finance system leads to conflict-of-interest questions even when none exist. "That undermines confidence in the legislative process," she stated.

Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman with Common Cause, echoed the message. "We certainly know that contributions go a long way to gaining access and influence," she said. "The appearance is that money buys votes."

Maplight's analysis, crunched using contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics, found that the 293 House members voting last week in favor of the wiretapping compromise received, on average, more than double the amount of money as those who voted against it. They got $9,659 from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint between January 2005 and March 2008, while those voting against got $4,810.

But some campaign finance experts warned against linking campaign donations to votes. "It's way too simplistic just to look at money given to a candidate and claim it's affected a particular vote," said Richard L. Hasen, an election specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "It's something that's often alleged, but much harder to prove."

"There does seem to be a correlation between telecom money and the way people voted," Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said in an email, "but as in all cases when you're following the money, causation is nearly impossible to establish."

Indeed, in the case of the spying proposal, 94 of the 105 Democrats voting for the bill had supported an earlier House proposal to renew the spying law without granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), one of those 94, made clear that she opposed telecom immunity, but was forced to accept a compromise for the sake of passing a bill. The immunity language was a concession to the White House, which threatened to veto any bill without it.

"I do not believe that Congress should be in the business of interfering with ongoing lawsuits and attempting to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly violated the law," Pelosi said on the chamber floor last week. "Those companies have not lived up to the standards expected by the American people ... They come out of this with a taint."

In return, Democrats included language previously opposed by the administration, including a clarification that the president has no authority outside the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to collect foreign-to-domestic communications, even in times of war.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill on Wednesday.

Not all Democrats felt the compromise language was worth the sacrifice of civil liberties.

"I have consistently said that it is not appropriate for Congress to grant these companies immunity for their actions without having an understanding of what it is that they did," said Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "This is not only because it will hold the telecommunications companies accountable for their actions, but because it is the only way of finding out just how extensive the president's illegal wiretapping program really was."

Liberal voters have lit up the blogosphere in agreement, charging that Democrats caved to White House demands at the expense of constitutional rights. Some civil liberties advocates also placed blame on the congressional leaders.

"This is all part of the abuse of power that we've seen out of this White House, as well as Congress' refusal to stand up and perform its constitutional duty to check the executive branch," said Boyle of Common Cause. "Congress is complicit here."

Source. / Washington Independent / truthout

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...