While the speculation is now who Barack will choose for CIO (Chief Information Officer) for the nation, the Chair of the FCC, and his change in the current Communication Policy ...
http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent?page_name=HT%3A++Obama+Administration
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the time being, the focus for citizens in support of local access to programming telecom media should now be on Congress, the FCC, and their state legislatures. We need NOT focus on the doings of Barack and his transition team! Here is an introduction and resources to now consider to protect the public's right to participate fullly in using the new media and techologies:
http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent?page_name=LEGISLATIVE%20FEATURE:%20Intro%20Page
FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON FRANCHISING
INTRODUCTION; Key Resources
The Bell companies and their allies are mounting a massive campaign in three different venues - Congress, the state legislatures, and the FCC - to eliminate local cable franchising. A Bell victory at any of these levels could effectively seize local property, deprive local governments of needed revenues, leave subscribers unprotected in dealing with large cable companies, and end public, educational, and governmental access. Thus, it is essential that local governments oppose the Bell campaign in all three areas.
In this ongoing feature we will make available key resources for this effort.
Congressional Video Franchise Legislation
State Video Franchise Legislation
FCC Rulemaking on Franchising
Related Legislation
October 30, 2008
http://www.gallup.com/video/111628/Campaign-Finance-Americans-Radar.aspx
While I support Barack and his success, I do not believe we need nor we should support the change Barack chose to bring to his campaign last July. Do you remember his announcement that he was "declaring indepencence" from his past support for accepting matching funds from tax payers who chose to allocate on their IRS 1040 form $3. to go the presidential campaign fund. I'm hoping to believe that you and I can influence fellow tax payers to check that box on their federal income tax form to contribute to the public pool of campaign funds. This money is clean of special influences, available to willing and qualifying candidates for president, and limits the (excessive) spending of participating presidential candidates.
Vote for Barack, check that box on your 1040, and tell future pres. candidates (including Barack) you expect them to take that public money and spending limits!
As a result of Congress's Subcommittee on Financial Service and General Government hearing on Sept. 17, on Sept. 30 the Subcommittee wrote the FCC expressing their concerns relating to telecom (AT&T U-verse) abuse of PEG channel programming. The subcommittee asked the FCC to review these complaints and, where their findings showed illegal behavior of the telecom providers, initiate enforcement proceedings. The letter follows.
--------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515-6015
September 30, 2008
The Honorable Kevin J. MartinChairmanFederal Communications Commission445 12th Street SWWashington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Martin: ·
As you know, the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government heid a hearingon September 17, 2008 on public, educational, and governmentai (PEG) access to cable television.The subcommittee appreciates the participation of the Commissionʼs Media Bureau Chief, MonicaShah Desai, at this hearing.
We recognize that there are considerabie changes occurring in cable television, including thetransition to all digital transmission and the entry of new competitors and technologies into the market.We believe that these changes can deliver improved cable television for millions of viewers. However,we also believe that PEG television is essential to our communities as an outlet tbr free speech, localinformation and opinions, and emergency communications. Changes in the cabie environment shouldnot lead to a dirninishment ofthe accessibility of PEG channels to these same viewers.
The subcommittee heard several concerns relating to PEG at the hearing. These concernsinclude:
• Some cabie operators are moving PEG channels to new locations on the channel dial,including moving them into digitai locations up to the 900 channel block. Witnessesexpressed concern that this places PEG channels well away from the basic tier of channelsand may require some consumers to rent or purchase converter equipment to view PEG channels.
----------------------------------The Honorable Kevin J. MartinSeptember 30, 2008Page 2
• in its U-verse cable service, AT&T delivers PEG programming in a manner that is differentfrom its delivery of commercial channels. The service offers PEG programming via anInternet-based video stream at a single channel location and requires the viewer to loadPEG programming through a series of menus. Witnesses told the subcommittee that thismethod of PEG delivery is siow and technologically inferior to how commercial channelsare delivered over U-verse service. They cited inferior picture quality, lack of closedcaptioning or second audio programming, incompatibiiity with programmable recordingdevices, and absence of program Iistings for PEG programs.
• Concerns also were raised about the degradation of public safety communications onAT&Tʼs U-verse service. U-verseʼs emergency aiert system procedures were described intestimony as "cumbersome and inefficient" and as not supporting emergency alert messagesthat would override or scroll on broadcast channels. If an emergency alert messagedirecting viewers to a PEG channel for more information cannot be displayed, and if aviewer cannot immediately access a PEG channel with emergency information, we questionwhether emergency communications are being delivered effectively.
Ms. Desai made the following statement at the hearing: "The statute requires PEG channels tobe placed on the basic service tier aiong with your local broadcast channeis. So to piace additionalburdens on consumers to have to find their PEG channels seems to defeat the purpose of the basicservice tier."
We agree with this statement and beiieve that the concerns we heard at the hearing representevidence that PEG channels are being assigned a second class status outside ofthe basic service tier.We ask the Commission to asses these concerns to determine whether the situations described arecontrary to federal laws and reguiations and, if so, take expeditious enforcement actions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Ralph Regula José E. SorranoRanking Member ChairmanSubcommittee on Financiai Services Subcommittee on Financiai Servicesand General Government and General Government
David R. Obey
Chairman
-----------------------
The Honorable Kevin J. MartinSeptember 30, 2008Page 3
Mark Steven Kirk Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
Peter J. Visclosky Maurice D. Hinchey
Adam Schiff
Cc: The Honorable Michael J. Copps
The Honorable Jonathan S. Adelstein
The Honorable Deborah Taylor Tate
The Honorable Robert M. McDowell
-------------------------------------
It is important to cities, towns, schools, and the general public that the next President of the United States respect the important role PEG access TV plays in free speech and community building processes. The next president should appoint only FCC commissioners who will consider equally the value of this free speech venue with all other media and communications considerations in the Commission's purview.
For immediate releaseSeptember 18, 2008 U.S House Subcommittee will ask FCC to examine harm to public, educational and governmental television In response to testimony from Alliance for Community Media members yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government voiced strong bi-partisan support for public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access for communities and asked the FCC to examine whether AT&T and other cable operators are in compliance with the Cable Act of 1984. In opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Jose Serrano (NY-D) and Congressman Mark Kirk (IL-R) expressed concern that local PEG access channels are in danger of declining or disappearing as a result of the current regulatory and business environment. Barbara Popovic, Executive Director of Chicago Access Network Television, representing the Alliance, and Michael Max Knobbe, president of the Alliance’s New York chapter, and Executive Director of BronxNet, presented testimony that detailed multiple problems with PEG access channel delivery arising out of recent actions by the FCC, state legislatures, the cable industry and AT&T. Problems that were outlined included a loss of funding and channels, movement of PEG to higher numbered channels (referred to as “channel slamming”), reduced quality and functionality of existing channels, and loss or reductions in public cable drops to schools, libraries and other public centers. Regarding the issues of AT& T’s treatment of PEG channels, Ms. Popovic said “Bottom line, AT&T, the company that promotes ‘choice’ in cable franchising, is giving viewers no choice when it comes to PEG.” Mr. Knobbe discussed the problems associated with channel slamming, which include additional costs to consumers to view PEG channels. FCC Media Bureau Chief Monica Desai agreed that at least one of these practices may be illegal, stating “We believe that placing PEG channels on any tier other than the basic service tier may be a violation of the statute.” When asked why the FCC was not enforcing that provision of the statute, Ms. Desai indicated that the FCC needed a formal complaint in order to act, and had not received any. In response, Subcommittee member Adam Schiff (CA-D) stated that he believed the FCC had authority to enforce the law whether or not they’d received complaints. In closing, Subcommittee Chairman Serrano (NY-D) and Representative Kirk (IL-R) announced that they would send a letter to the FCC asking it to deal with the issues raised at the hearing.
###
The Alliance for Community Media is the national nonprofit membership organization representing the interests of over 3000 Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access organizations. For more information contact the Alliance at 202-393-2650.
----------------------------------------
Photographs of the September 17 congressional hearing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29275533@N06/sets/72157607380961613/
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080910_6421.php?
TECHNOLOGY Tech Czar Might Rule Policy Under Obama
Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2008
An administration run by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would likely create a national technology czar with broad authority to develop policy, elevating high-tech issues to the cabinet level in a major recalibration of the government's approach to regulating the communications sector.
The move would have substantial implications for the FCC, an independent agency that could be answerable to a new layer of bureaucracy or bolstered by it, depending on political circumstances.
The plan is being floated by the Democratic presidential nominee's top tech-minded advisers and supporters, including FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, widely viewed as a contender to run the agency if Obama is elected.
"There's a need for a single source at a White House level to coordinate technology policy across different agencies," Adelstein told CongressDaily late last month after a speech in Denver at the Democratic National Convention.
"They're extremely serious about it," he said of the Obama team, describing the proposal as a "fundamental tenet" of the Democratic nominee's tech agenda.
A chief technology officer would play a lead role in developing national broadband policy, drawing on the expertise of a wide range of departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, EPA, HHS, HUD and Treasury.
The appointee also might coordinate inter-agency efforts to establish tax certificates designed to boost minority ownership of media properties, oversee spectrum policy and help improve the government's reliance on information technology.
But the idea of a federal tech czar is proving highly controversial, with critics raising concerns about the level of authority he or she would have and increased prospects for turf battles and gridlock that could undermine the overarching goal.
They emphasized that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy already tackles some responsibilities the CTO would be tasked with.
At a communications forum in July, three of Adelstein's FCC colleagues expressed caution.
Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps said he prefers to make the agency more independent rather than "politicizing" tech issues at the White House, although he is open to a more narrowly focused national broadband czar.
Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell suggested that each party's view of a CTO hinges on whether it controls the executive branch, while fellow GOP Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate also worried about harming the commission's independence.
Adelstein dismissed concerns that more bureaucracy and bickering would result. "I really think that there can be better coordination. The FCC alone can't deal with all of these issues," he said, adding that there is a need for a "central focus" on high-tech matters in the White House.
He insisted the proposal is not a byproduct of recent controversy about the commission's approach to regulation. "I think it's really a positive vision for how to improve and deal with some of the inadequacies of the last eight years," he said, referring to the Bush administration, which has been criticized by Democrats for ineffective regulations governing media and telecom companies.
Bill Kennard, who headed the FCC during the Clinton administration and is now a telecom and tech adviser to the Obama campaign, said no determination has been made about which government department, if any, a CTO would join. "We haven't gotten to that level of detail," he said. Kennard is now a managing director with the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm.
Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, was cautiously supportive, noting during an interview in Denver that a CTO would send a "symbolic message" about Obama's commitment to making technology a bigger priority.
But he cautioned that the new title is not a "silver bullet" for fixing years of what he insists has been neglect. "Such a person can be an advocate and a centralized place to get information," he said.
There have been technology officers at various agencies and departments in the Bush and Clinton administrations but there has never been a government-wide CTO.
Last year, the White House closed its Technology Administration, a division of the Commerce Department, and eliminated the title of undersecretary of technology, a role widely viewed as weak and ineffectual.
The Democratic Party platform calls for creating a CTO "to ensure we use technology to enhance the functioning, transparency and expertise of government," while the GOP platform does not broach the matter.
"I don't think that making a new presidential appointment and adding a layer to the federal government" is the solution, said former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona during a recent interview with C-SPAN.
by David Hatch
http://www.commonblog.com/story/2008/8/22/123647/812
Where do the two major party candidates stand on the media reform issues we highlight in our new report, "Media and Democracy in America Today: A Reform Plan for a New Administration"?
It's a mixed bag.
McCain has a strong record of supporting Low Power FM Radio, increasing diversity of media ownership, funding public broadcasting and free air time for campaigns. However, he has opposed stopping media consolidation and is against net neutrality.
Obama on the other hand has been a vocal supporter of net neutrality and has actively opposed media consolidation. While generally good on most of the issues we highlight in the new report, he has less of a record to show for it.
And there are gaps in our knowledge. That's why we would like to hear from their campaigns and anyone else who can tell us where they stand on issues like reforming the processes at the Federal Communications Commission and if they support PEG Access TV.
We have a full chart of their stands on the issues we raise in our new report - as far as we know them. Check it out, and let us know if you have any more information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am happy to read above that Obama has been a "... vocal supporter of net neutrality and has actively opposed media consolidation." However, my prime media issue is PEG Access TV. From this web site, link to Common Causes' "full chart of their (Obama's and McCain's) stands on the issues." Follow that chart to "Public Access (PEG)". Under Obama, you'll see no finding concerning Obama's stated position or legislative record on Public Access (PEG).
How does a voter find out Barack Obama's views on Public Access (PEG)?!
Wallace Stuart
Since I wrote on this topic and posed questions in July, I've received no comments or answers. In June, I wrote abourt the same issue and got the same non-reaction. Doesn't any one acquainted with this candidate have any idea of his views on the subject of advancement of telecommunications and big media?
Again, I'm interested in what Barack thinks about the role of FCC regulation vis-a-vis state and partucularly local regulation of cable TV, broadband systems, voice (cable and mobile), and diversity in ownership of big media. What qualifications would Barack consider important in persons he would nominate for membership on the FCC? Do any of Barack's staff have pass employment or represent owners of the telecom and big media industries or lead unions which represent workers in these industries?
Does Barack believe that municipal leaders accross America are currently making a positive contribution to the regulation of local cable TV systems and the advancement of high-speed broadband delivery of video? Many owners of telecom and big media corporations are convinced that the FCC commissioners can better access local needs for and regulate advanced video services than can states and municipalities. Does Senator Obama believe that ownership preferences for big Washington regulation should prevail in this land?
- Does Barack see any linkage between local franchising cable TV and the delay by telecoms in the delivery of true high speed broadband to rural areas?
- Does Barack think that state PUCs or the FCC would do a better job of negotiating and monitoring fulfillment of cable TV franchises for cities and towns than local municipalities?
- Does Barack approve of the FCC pushing cities and towns out of the way (Re: franchising cable TV) so that high speed broadband can be installed rapidly to under served markets?
