Washington DC. Denise "DeeNice" Rhodes (the Digital Dynamo) has been a champion for vulnerable Americans impacted by the DTV explosion.
Tonight (June 25th at 7:00 PM), local residents requested that DeeNice explain the challenges they are having since the switch over 12 days ago to the digital world. Location: The Van Ness Building Complex, 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, DC 20008
Working every day for the last year, her passion is to ensure underprivileged communities and the elderly will not be left in the dark when millions of analog TVs switched to digital on June 12, 2009.
She also wants to ensure that expectations and misinformation circulating about this monumental transition will not be allowed to negatively impact Americans, leaving them without access to the television viewing experience.
DeeNice's non-profit organization, The Urban Progressive Foundation, is responsible for providing DTV consumer education to over 10,000 residents and installing over 1400 digital converter boxes. She would like to share her grass-roots level perspective on experiences and best practices when working with seniors & underserved communities with your audience as soon as possible!
For more information call: 202-652-4700, or info@dtvoutreach.org. The Urban Progressive Foundation is a project of Congressional District Programs, a 501(c) 3 public charity. All donations are fully tax-deductible.
########
Ms. Denise "DeeNice" Rhodes of Washington D.C. has been working every day for the last year to ensure underprivileged communities and the elderly in the mid- Atlantic area aren't left in the dark when analog TVs everywhere switch to digital June 12, 2009. But there is still much work to be done! In the Washington DC area alone, African Americans have the highest incidence of NOT redeeming their $40 coupons for the digital converter box. Based on December 2008 numbers only 25% of Washingtonians have redeemed their coupons.
She also wants to ensure that expectations and misinformation circulating about this monumental transition will not be allowed to negatively impact Americans, leaving them in the dark.
DeeNice's nonprofit organization, The Urban Progressive Foundation, is responsible for providing DTV consumer education to over 7000 residents, and installing over 1000 digital converter boxes by the end of this month. She would like to share her grass-roots level perspective on experiences and best practices when working with seniors & underserved communities with your audience as soon as possible! There are only seven days left before the transition.
If Ms. Rhodes can make an appearance on your show, please contact us at 202-652-4700 or info@dtvoutreach.org. She would be honored to do so and many communities would be served by this opportunity. If she is able to give a simple demonstration or share important and valuable information many Americans, who may otherwise have no idea how or where to get help, can be served by these efforts.
For more information call: 202-652-4700, or info@dtvoutreach.org
In the midst of the transition a local non-profit group, The Urban Progressive Foundation (a project of CDP, 501(c) 3) has committed to assisting underserved Americans not be left in the dark.
When DeeNice Rhodes, executive director of TUPF received a call a few weeks ago from a local Ronald McDonald house. They expressed a need to be transitioned digitally for several residents’ rooms. Since this group home does not qualify to receive the $40 coupons subsidy to offset the cost of the boxes they contact Ms. Rhodes organization for help. DeeNice contacted the local Wal-Mart#2258 in Alexandria VA who were willing to donate several digital converter boxes and antennas for her cause to not allow residents to be left in the dark come June 12, 2009. This weekend the Urban Progressive Foundation will deliver and then install the boxes in each on the 16 living quarters.
Of the 35 million Americans that have one or more TVs with either rabbit ears or roof top antennas, a disproportionate number will be the underserved communities (i.e. elderly, minorities, disable, and rural). Based on DTV reports and the demographics of DC, it is clear that the largest impact the DTV transition will have are on the most vulnerable Americans.
The Urban Progressive Foundation (www.DTVoutreach.org) or www.thedigitaldynamo.com) is a grassroots organization passionate about assisting the underserved communities before their sets go dark.
Following are highlights from various reports regarding DTV’s impact on the nation.
The Urban Progressive Foundation
Currently, we are on a mission to assist the underserved communities (i.e. elderly, minorities, disable and rural) to become connected during the Transition to Digital Television national switchover. This organization has done workshops, educational trainings, and hands-on events, as well as helping to connect their digital converter boxes. Through "The Urban Progressive Foundation" these grassroots efforts are helping to train, educate and assist our communities to Transition to Digital Television before the June 12, 2009. The Urban Progressive Foundation is a project of Congressional District Programs, a 501(c) 3 public charity. All donations are fully tax-deductible.
need to register for free federal $40.00 DTV converter box couponshad a $40.00 coupon that expiredneed to redeem coupons have questions or need assistance with converter box installationwant an on-site demonstration or technical assistance
How is it that most of the "media" are owned by a frightenly small number of corporate entities? Television stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, movies, publishers, cable companies, etc. Think Time-Warner, then Turner, then Fox, then … who …?
Do I remember correctly that there used to be laws to protect the public against monopolistic control of the news? Doesn't "freedom of the press" mean freedom from hidden distortion due to corporate control, as well as freedom from distortion due to government control? We all know that there is a lot of corporate control of government, per se, but must there be a lot of corporate control of public information about government?
Many newspapers and local television stations are struggling to survive at all. Given the internet and a rush of technological innovations in communications, a revolution is inevitable in how we are informed about what is happening, especially in our government. Really good journalists are wondering who or what (if anyone or anything) they will be working for 5-10 years from now. In addition to PBS and NPR and CSPAN and the BBC, what is there to ensure public access to reasonably trustworthy news and discussion and commentary?
Could we somehow use this really-big-the-economy-affects-and-is-affected-by-everything crisis to fix the FCC, lest those who think the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of this country give them all the truth and interpretation of the truth that they need to guide their votes in the next election?
Letter to President Osama:
Dear Sir:
Congratulations on your inauguration as president of the USA.
I was moved to point out to you that the largest move you can make to change Americans for the better (which your inaugural speech emphasized) would be for you to overhaul the FCC. The quality of “entertainment” programs such as Two and a Half Men and the likes which are driven by sexual innuendos and double entendres should be shown only after midnight when children are most likely to be asleep. There appearances at the so called Family Hour or 7-10PM are the most degrading and insulting attacks on the human mind that I can imagine. There is no redeeming qualities that justifies there being available to people (especially children) to watch and consider them demonstrative qualities that children should emulate.
I am a member of the Parents Television Council and see that after millions of protests and letters demanding them be moved from the Family Hour time slot, nothing has had the power to shut them down. The FCC seems powerless to protect the public airwaves from such insulting and degrading programs of filth and sewage. Now that you are in the position to influence the agency which is sworn to protect the public from such trash, I wish that you would investigate this agency and sanitize the “Family Hour” at least and make those demoralizing shows available only to those subscribers that value that type of “entertainment.” I certainly have no desire to pay any channel provider for that type of program.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles C. Bell
972 Martin Road
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Copies: Parent Television Council
Nielsen's report (December 19, 2008) stated that November - December 2008, the penetration of Completely Unready households for the DTV transition was 6.8% of households.
1. There are 114.5 million households in American that own television sets
2. 6.8% (7.8 million) of these households currently, are totally unprepared for the analog to digital switch3. 10% (11.4 million) of U.S. Households are Partially Unready (having cable and analog tv)
This means that a total of 19.2 million households have some fancy footwork to do before Feb. 17, 2009 in order not be left in the dark with their analog television sets.
Granted, there has been strong media outreach supported by the NAB, NTIA and FCC to alert and make people aware that the switch is coming. And they have done a remarkable job with 90% of Americans being made aware.
The problem is that making people aware and having them make a buying decision during the worst financial condition our country has seen since the "depression" is a different matter all together. Not to mention a technological application to boot.
I can just see grandma running down to her local retail store and hooking up a digital converter box. The following is what will be in store for her:
1. Locate her $40 government issued coupons and check to see that they have not expired.
2. Locate digital converter boxes in the store and ask if the model available has a pass-through feature so low band width channels can still be viewed on her TV.
3. Purchase a digital converter (DC) box. (There still may be time to register to receive the $40 off coupon from www.dtv2009.gov.)
4. Back at home, make sure she has an antenna that can be connected to the digital converter (DC) box. (If not, this could mean a return trip to the store for an adapter or a new antenna.)
5. Check for an available outlet plug near her TV set. If not, she will need a multi plug adapter, extension chord, or power strip.
6. Find the original remote control for her analog TV.
7. Connect the digital converter (DC) box properly, inserting batteries in the DC remote control, and plugging in the DC box.
8. Turn on the TV. Set the TV to channel 3 with the original TV remote.
9. Turn on the DC using the correct remote. WARNING: Remember don't mix up the remotes.
10. On the DC remote, press the setup or menu button and scroll to menu.
11. Scroll to and Scan the channels. Channel scanning will need to be repeated when additional DTV channels become available.
12. Hope and Pray that most of the channels come in. Many times they won't. Repositioning the TV antenna higher or closer to an outside wall or window may improve reception. (Try scanning again.)
13. Oops, did you hook your rabbit ears/roof top antenna to the digital converter box in the proper port in the back of the digital converter box, and the extra cable in the box to the TV-out port correctly? Then Nana, you are almost there.
14. Now, remember your original remote for the analog TV set is only used to turn the set on and off. Make sure not to change the channel off of "3".
15. Finally make sure you use the new remote only for channel surfing and volume, not for turning the TV on and off. Keep the DC box directions in a safe, memorable, and accessible place for when scanning for new channels needs to be done.
Got all that NANA? Now enjoy your new digital viewing experience. Pleeezzzz, someone get me some aspirin.
Can you see this being done in a month or so with 19.2 million folks, with a disproportionate number being the elderly, minorities, those whose first language is not English, rural and disabled?
WE WERE CAMPAIGNING TO HAVE THE FEB. 17TH DATE SET BACK. IN THESE TURBULENT TIMES, WE CANNOT HAVE 19 MILLION AMERICAN LEFT IN THE DARK. Especially, with the new administration UPDATE - As of Feburary 8, 2009 the House Approved the DTV Delay Bill to push back the dtv date for June 12, 2009. More time, education and activitism is needed!
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
Greetings Everyone,
Because the agencies whose missions have been to protect us and our interests as citizens of this country have allowed themselves to be dictated to by political interests rather than there assigned duties as directed by their mission statements, we find our health & well-being, our environment, and our federal and local budgets are in jeopardy.
I am not just referring to the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but I am also talking about agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.
The nuclear power industry has been allowed to tell the American public that it provides safe and clean energy to our country. Though nuclear power is neither safe nor clean, it has been allowed to do this by the FCC and the FTC and SEC when it engages in its advertising and when it engages in its business activities. The nuclear power/energy industry has been allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the Department Of Energy, and state public service commissions to be heavily involved in setting the standards and regulations that govern it. Those standards and regulations, for the most part, do not protect human health or the environment.
The current as well as previous administrations have allowed these regulatory agencies to be run by, and in most cases rendered impotent by having them run with, political appointments and agendas. This has been unfortunate, because now we have an American public who is working from a well ingrained position of ignorance when it has been led to believe that nuclear power is clean, safe, less expensive, and needs to remain 'on the table' as part of our energy solution.
These agencies that were designed to protect us have allowed the nuclear power/energy industry to get away with false advertising in its commercials and publications, they have been allowed to misinform investors with this same false and incomplete information.
A nuclear power reactor/plant is not a stand-alone entity that acts as the sole source provider of nuclear power. It is only one segment of the process of getting nuclear power generated electricity to the public. It is only one link in the fuel chain.
We have to face that we are being led down a path that is false from it beginning. Nuclear energy is one of the most egregious emitters of CO2, toxic heavy metals, and other poisonous emissions and we have to stop being led by the nuclear industry to believe that nuclear power is clean, safe energy.
The electricity produced by nuclear power in and of itself is relatively benign, however the waste, including high levels of CO2, which has been created to get us to the production of that electricity will harm you, your children, your grandchildren, and generations after them.
You should also always keep in mind that CO2 is not the only toxin that we have to deal with or be worried about.
The nuclear industry itself uses enormous amounts of electricity in their gaseous diffusion plants, (created by coal-fired power plants). Enormous amounts of cooling water are needed and used, and the highly corrosive and radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. All have adverse human health and environmental impacts. The waste is pervasive in its movements through our earth, air, and water. It has proven itself to be more than difficult to contain. It has proven itself deadly. Sometimes it will kill you slowly; sometimes it will kill you quickly. The nuclear power/energy industry has of course chosen to do its damage primarily on Native American lands as well as in poor and minority communities. The people who until now had no voice, no say.
But don't be fooled. Nuclear waste is not just a byproduct created at the end of the nuclear weapons, nuclear fuel, or nuclear energy production cycle. The ugliness begins at the beginning and it's not all radioactive. The Uranium ore needed to produce nuclear power or nuclear energy has to be mined. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Part of the uranium mining process is milling which consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore. The waste produced is known as milling tailings. In some cases these highly radioactive tailings are left on and near the land surrounding the mines creating another legacy of dangerous waste. For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain an extremely high percentage of the radioactivity in the original ore, along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic which adversely affect the environment and human health. After being converted to uranium hexafluoride it is further enriched through the process of gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235 (half-life of 700 million years). Considered to be the "product", it's the isotope needed for nuclear power and weapons. Uranium-238, aka depleted uranium, another byproduct of gaseous diffusion, is a heavy metal and radioactive. Uranium-238 can be used to breed plutonium-239. These radioactive and toxic wastes are process and production outcomes. Remember, all of this and we haven't even gotten to the nuclear reactor for the production of the first nuclear energy generated kilowatt.
We really have to let our representatives know that we are not going to continue to allow this industry to control our conversation on our energy needs and our national security. We can look forward to being carbon free and nuclear free if we make that commitment to ourselves, our families, and our environment.
We have to start now to look toward a new type of future, a future that considers all of us, not just one group of people. We have to stop this unsafe practice of giving quick money more importance than sound judgment and survival.
It is time to change how we live in this world, we have to start somewhere, at some point in time. Now is that time.
Peace,
Dianne
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
McSame claims to be strong on the enforcement of antitrust legislation, but he sure doesn't have a problem with mass media consolidation.
Even back in 1999 when he was supposedly a maverick, McCain co-authored a proposal to remove the FCC from the telecommunications merger review process.
McCain co-sponsered the bill with ReDubYaKin Senators Orrin Hatch and John Ashcroft (prior to his notorious term as US Attorney-General) that would have required only Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission review, bypassing the FCC. Thanks to the Democratic Senate, it is one of many bills that did not pass!
Don't forget that consolidatoin favors the already influential McFox "News" and other right-wing (unashamedly McSame-partial) Murdoch media outlets, so I guess McSame is not as media-unaware as some people think. And to think that the ReDubYaKins claim liberal bias in the media! Removing FCC oversight would enable One station, uncrictical, with fascist totalitarianism for all!
Henry M
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?
Like many, I am offended by the propaganda pushed out by Fox News on a regular basis. We've all seen the evidence over the years, including memos coming down from bosses there telling the show's personalities what issues to discuss. However, like a traffic jam passing an accident scene, I still find myself ocassionally watching with disbelief the misrepresentation of facts, spin and propaganda coming out of Fox News every day - on almost every show.
Because watching a show on cable automatically adds to their ratings, I try hard not to watch it. Instead I visit www.newshounds.us, a website dedicated to documenting Fox truth-distortions and propaganda spewed from Fox "so I don't have to". These folks are great and support most of their posts with video or screenshots.
So here's the issue: With all of this documented spin, how does this network get away with it? I'm in favor of free speech, but why does the FCC and others allow for the truth to be spun and this information to be passed as news? Is anyone allowed to do this? Shouldn't there be some disclaimer that reminds all that this is an opinion network and not a news/journalistic network?
I googled and found this to be interesting:
CMW REPORT, Spring 2003 Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie” Author: Liane Casten
"...In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."
yes, there's more:
"...FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves."
So without something protecting the public from falsification of the news, how can we trust anything delivered over our airwaves? Are we left to double-check everything with the mulittude of sources available? I thought checking sources was a standard requirement of the news entity in an effort to back up their assertions? If they lie or distort, then obviously they are not checking sources. If they are not checking sources, then can we assume the next step will be to "make up the news"?
I've heard many folks say "to stop Fox you have to stop watching it". But as a lifelong Cubs fan I;ve heard this over and over. Stop going to the games and they'll have incentive to field a better team. I can testify it doesn't work. Too many small parts to properly coordinate the effort. Bsides, with big corporate sponsors (and influence), Fox won't feel a financial pinch for a long time.
Folks, I appeal to you:
What can we do?
You may recall Liz Trotta's statement during the primaries, that she would like it if "Osama and Obama" were both "bumped off." I filed a complaint with the FCC, which is charged with ensuring that broadcast in the public interest. After all this time, I finally received a reply, promising that they would review my complaint.
Her statement is just an example of the kind of vicious attacks that have been launched against Barack by extreme right wingers and some in the broadcast media, especially in the arena of cable news and talk radio, and most particularly (but not exclusively) by Fox News.
Though she apologized, her statement was basically swept under the rug by mainstream media. It is time for all fairminded Americans to stand up against the kind of hate-mongering.
Patrick Frank
Grassroots Obama volunteer
(843) 372-8851
patrickgfrank@yahoo.com
Something popped into my eMail box this morning from a friend with whom I am often in complete harmony. But this time, I think her dream is an exercise in futility, an effort that will lead to disappointment, even if waiting until after Inauguration Day:
Linda Poole wrote:
The FCC Chairman is a guy, remember, that BUSH appointed, so you all would be just wasting your time, spinning your wheels so to speak, by trying to influence the FCC while BUSH is in the White House. A million people could try to influence the FCC right now, and would have no more affect on the FCC than a gnat buzzing around their heads! After we get Obama elected President, that is the time to call for change and to work to get the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE restored...
