The announcement by Freenet that the northern German telecom company Talkline in Elmshorn will be closed-down has been a shock for the region. After about 20 years this may, but should not, be the end of this successful and profitable enterprise! It is encouraging that both the town and the politics are working on a solution for the highly skilled employees. Let us hope that there will be a future for these people!
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
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.
Posted 'NATEPERKINS.TV: Black Evangelicals Grassroot Hit The Street of Atlanta's For Barac ...' to blip.tv: http://blip.tv/file/1217647 ireport: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-70870
http://www.nateperkinslive.com
NATEPERKINS.TV: Georgia's Jennifer Brook and Friends Celebrated ...By NATEPERKINS.TV (blog-tv)(NATEPERKINS.TV (blog-tv)) Video thumbnail. Click to play Click to Play. Dear NATE -- Join a Georgia Unite for Change Team I'm excited to announce that today, the Campaign for Change in Georgia is launching our Unite for Change Team program in every county and ...Queen Of Late Night Talk Show... - http://bevsmithatlanta.blogspot.com/
So I saw a copy of David Mendell's book today; "From Promise to Power." I also saw on one of the news roundtables a picture of the cover from The New Yorker magazine. I also overheard what John McLaughlin said recently as well and I saw a pathetically worded attack from McCain, and this is a shocker here, questioning Obama's .... (wait for it...) patriotism. However, I am happy. I have never been so happy, not proud mind you since I wouldn't want to offend anyone who is proud of their country 24/7, to see such a wide variety of attacks against my - excuse me - our candidate of choice.
It is time to put it all aside. We are, by definition, better than that.
Saints, martyrs, good samaritans and knights; none of them would get involved in politics at any time. Why? Because politics is not an easy endeavor. You have to look someone in the face who would disagree with everything you have ever stood for and try and find common ground with that person. You have to listen to anyone and everyone that grabs your attention for more than 3 minutes. You have to consider every person that takes more than those three minutes of your time as relevant, as having something important to say, or as someone who is going to repeat what you might have just said to someone else, to a camera, to a voice recorder or even - if they are connected enough - to the entire world.
It is time to put it all aside. Scepticism always destroys. Leadership always creates.
Nevertheless, I find it funny that the same, recycled, rehashed and reincarnated attacks and criticisms are being trudged out over and over. I don't care what FISA was about because, as I picked up from someone today, FISA was a GOP lion waiting in the tall grass for Barack Obama. There would not have been a "right" vote. Going the other way would have made it easy for the GOP to bring out the "soft on terrorism" complaint, again. Am I unhappy? Yes. However, none of us who truly wishes to see Barack Obama become President can deny that the issue is far more complicated than voting yes or no.
It is time to put it all aside. There are never going to be clearcut wins or losses.
In terms of Mendell's new book, at it's best probably unbiased journalism with a slightly negative slant here and there, I really have no interest in paying to read one man's opinion of Barack Obama. As it is Mendell is looking to make a buck and since I read ten opinions about Obama everyday, good and bad, for free - in addition to probably hearing at least ten more - I'll pass. Does this put me at risk for being unenlightened? Hardly. Opinions are all very different and yes, some do make me cringe and some make me laugh. None of them; however, have any sway with me. We have seen people attack Barack Obama, his wife, his family heritage, his education, his beliefs, his faith, his friends and even his choice of clothes. The attacks have been aimed at such harmless concepts as hope, faith, determination, heart, willpower, love, strength and yes, pride.
It is time to put it all aside. At this point it is a question of faith. It's that simple.
None of this has mattered to me one bit. I am one person, an American, and I am entitled to vote for whomever I choose. I don't need to justify my choice of candidate. Barack Obama is a man who stands up in front of 10,000 people and millions worldwide and says "I'll give another 18 billion to the Department of Education but it won't make a dime's bit of difference unless you turn off the television and put the Playstation away" and that is the kind of man that I want in the White House. I don't need to tell anyone that Barack Obama is going to give the National Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs. I don't need to explain that Barack Obama has already reached to the other side of the aisle in order to work with Republicans.
It is time to put it all aside. I don't need to be told who my candidate is.
I know who he is.
So, will Barack Obama continue to be able to collect megacash from small donors? It's a question to which I would like to know an answer.
I can say this: If I had learned that Barack Obama had taken charge of the situation, and made Steny Hoyer stop what he was doing, not only would I have been impressed by Barack Obama's ability to take the lead (which now is not so impressive), but also I'd have made a rather generous small donation. As things stand, I have given a couple of times to the Dodd presidential campaign, and I have given to the Clinton campaign to help pay off its debt, to reward Clinton for doing the right thing when she dropped out and sided with Obama, but I have given nothing directly to the Obama campaign. In fact, by far the biggest contributions and pledges I have made, starting a while ago and continuing today, have been to the funds that will be used, for example, to see that Steny Hoyer is primaried out of the House in 2010.
I just don't know what else to do. If Obama does a remarkable shaping up, that's worth rewarding; or if Obama continues to make himself unpopular with people like me, and somehow ends up looking as if he might actually lose to John McCain (or a replacement candidate should McCain start forgetting his own name or losing the way to any of his mansions), then what else am I supposed to do but try to help Obama, even though he would be turning out to be an incredible loser? But let it not go that route.
I want Barack Obama to know that by capitulating to Bushist demands he does not take "national security" off the table, but rather that this behavior is precisely why so many voters correctly perceive Democrats as "weak on Republicans" and thus infer that Democrats would likely be "weak on terrorism". People are not just being duped by Republicans, but are making reasonable inferences from the fear and submissiveness being displayed by Democrats such as Barack Obama. And I'm not going to reward that loser behavior with my donations. Behave like a winner and I'll donate.
Let me start by quoting the most promising presidential candidate I have seen run in my lifetime:
[The FISA Bill] 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.
You need go no further than that. "... removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses." Allow me to rephrase that: "... removes an important tool for the American people to petition the government for a redress of grievances." We The People have a right to petition. This legislation infringes that right. Everyone who voted in favor has broken their oath of office.
Everyone who voted in favor violated their oath of office to defend The Constitution, and to preserve the right of We The People to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sixty-nine Senators, in a single vote, violated their oath of office to defend our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I have spent the last three hours trying to write this post. I still don't know what to say next. Help me understand. How could sixty-nine patriotic, educated, well-intentioned, men and women do this to our nation? How did we come to this? How do we set it right? How are we supposed to react?
Chip Pitts writes:(http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/chippitts/gGxfxK)
"Today was a dark day indeed. Our candidate, the candidate of change “we can believe in,” certainly changed his position on filibustering a terrible FISA bill."
First, he did exactly what he told us he was going to do and the reason he was going to do it.
He is OUR candidate. Not yours. OUR job is to get him elected.
You say "The members of this group are only the tip of the iceberg." Let's look at what the iceberg might look like.
Suppose
one-third of Obama's registered supporters favor your position,
one third think that his decision was correct, balancing real security threats, the need to get legislation in place and political consideration one the one hand against providing immunity for PAST civil (but not criminal) misdeeds on the other.
And suppose one-third don't care and are happy to leave it to Obama. Now suppose 10 percent of your supporters are active and noisy, 2 percent of the supporters Obama's compromise are, and everyone else is quiet. Neither you nor I know exactly what the iceburg is like. My bet is that Obama has a much better sense. Seems like to me he did the right thing.We are talking about support, not agreement; and an entire program, not a single issue.You state, "an immunity deal that will in all likelihood forever prevent the public from learning the full truth behind Bush’s illegal domestic spying." Really? Why? And if so, it that worth "chipping" away at winning the election? Don't Nader us. DGM
Today was a dark day indeed. Our candidate, the candidate of change “we can believe in,” certainly changed his position on filibustering a terrible FISA bill that added new categories of warrantless surveillance and granted immunity to the big telecom companies complicit in the Bush administration’s warrantless spying.
Instead of offering strong, principled leadership on this issue, and using his power as the Democratic nominee to bring along the minority of Democratic Senators who supported this atrocious legislation, he and they joined the solid Republican bloc to ratify the most egregious aspects of the Bush administration’s approach to warrantless surveillance and enable an immunity deal that will in all likelihood forever prevent the public from learning the full truth behind Bush’s illegal domestic spying. We’re talking about a Democratic Congress here – facing a Republican president and a Republican party experiencing historically low public approval ratings!
Today’s vote was a body blow to the rule of law, good government, transparency, accountability, due process of law, equal justice without regard to special interests, and core constitutional rights of privacy, free expression, assembly, free press, free religion (and the list goes on). All of these rights and values are interrelated and act together to protect us and make us stronger. When key strands unravel, all the rights and values are affected to a lesser or greater degree. Such issues truly transcend partisan politics or loyalty to any one candidate to implicate the future not just of a political campaign but that of the nation and the world.
Today’s vote was also a personal blow to millions who believed that Sen. Obama was a different kind of politician. The members of this group are only the tip of the iceberg.
I have said and would like to believe that Sen. Obama’s error of judgment likely resulted from bad advice given by consultants oblivious to the crucial importance of the candidate’s “brand” as a uniquely principled and constitutionally literate candidate. Not realizing the different conditions presented by a public newly empowered by the internet and democratic social networking and other technologies, these consultants advised a candidate too busy to read the full bill himself to make the classic post-primary move to the supposed “center” in order to attract Republicans and independents in swing states. But this isn’t a shift toward the center; fundamental constitutional issues like this aren’t of the left or right (or middle), but provide the foundation for all sides of the structure. We know from his history, biography, and writings that Sen. Obama deeply understands this – which is all the more reason that his u-turn is so unexpected and jarring.
Obama’s politics were supposed to be less ideological, less partisan, less tied to special interests (like powerful telecommunications companies), and more sensitive to the basic American values of constitutional rights and principled pragmatism that, above all else, bind this diverse nation one to all. The politics thus envisioned is “pragmatic” in the best sense of the word (focused on principled solutions that work), not in the worst sense (compromising on fundamental principle). The difference between the two is precisely why Republicans, independents, and libertarians flocked to the candidate along with activist Democrats, progressives, young people, the elderly, and all sorts of new entrants into the political process.
The FISA/immunity issue more than most epitomized all this, representing an opportunity to transcend the politics of fear, misinformation, and ideological division -- an opportunity to affirm fact-based surveillance based on constitutionally required individual suspicion instead of deceptive, overbroad, counterproductive, wasteful, and dangerous dragnet surveillance, datamining, and unchecked executive power. (Will this FISA bill's overbroad surveillance infrastructure really help capture real terrorists, or does it more closely resemble the inefficient, labyrinthine, and counterproductive Homeland Security Department? Isn’t it much more likely that such a mammoth dragnet of everyone's communications can be avoided by terrorists as easily as they might avoid the stupid but feel-good requirement that we all remove our shoes every time we board an airplane?)
The McCain camp was always going to accuse Sen. Obama of being “soft on terror.” His new brand of politics raised the hope of finally getting past such ridiculous and misleading false dichotomies. At his best, he has proven himself to be singularly capable of doing this (e.g in his red state/blue state speech at the last Democratic convention, race speech in Philadelphia, etc). Our country urgently needs such a return to practical reason if there’s to be any “hope” of tackling the tremendous problems faced.
There is a possible path to heal this breach of trust with his disenchanted supporters, difficult as that may be to conceive at this point. This group’s members have drafted an open letter at www.getFISAright.com which you’re all invited to sign. That letter asks Sen. Obama to take three concrete and specific actions aimed at reaffirming, despite this vote, his commitment to the rule of law, transparency, accountability, and preserving the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He has, after all, asked his supporters to hold him accountable, which is exactly the point of this letter and this group in the run-up to the November elections.
Bob Herbert of the New York Times yesterday quoted Obama’s pledge to be someone “who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree.” In the Wiki Age, this need not be – cannot be -- mere campaign rhetoric. A new politics is still possible. And it is up to us as much as is up to Senator Obama to make it so.
Today the rule of law, the checks and balances and the rights reserved in the Bill of Rights were damaged as the FISA act was once again altered and retroactive immunity was authorized for law breaking telecoms. A lot has been written about this. I will not add to that.
Instead, I thought I would point out a pair of quiet revolutions that took place over the last couple of years that got very little coverage. I do so for two reasons. First it is worth noting that not all of the battles for civil liberties in the last couple of years have been lost, and second, it is important to realize that major changes both for good and ill can happen with virtually no one noticing.
I've never said anything negative on this site. I've always kept quiet though I had some growing concern about our candidate. And I'm writing what I'm writing now because I still believe that of the two major candidates, Barack Obama is our greater HOPE. BUT, I feel now is the time two voice at least a little of my concern.
First of all, today, Barack voted in favor of the new FISA Bill sponsored by George Bush and his cronies to protect the goverment and the abbetting telecoms currently participating in large scale illegal domestic spying. He had previously spoken out against any such bill offering this type of immunity. I am very upset. OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES MUST BE UPHELD! This is way out of character and election year pandering. As a friend who's never met you Mr. Obama, I suggest NOW is the time to apologize to your constiuents for this election year garbage. You ARE better than this.
The other issue over which I am concerned has to do with the election year funding. Early on Barack pledged to utilize public funding, resting on the idea that his ideas were more powerful than finances. Recently he aknowledged that unlike McCain he would not be doing this, citing his feeling that it would be unfair as he would not utilize PACs etc. in the way McCain would and would give him a significant disadvantage. I agree with him, to an extent. But a pledge is just that. We need you to stick by your concience even when it seems it will hurt you. That is the definition of leadership.
With that said, I just really hope and pray sir that this slide on your promises for political gain, doesn't compromise who you are. I pray it stops here. I'll be watching and hoping.
Thank you,
Jacob Kelly
Am I missing something here? Is all this uproar about Obama not voting against the FISA bill really centered around whether or not some telecom company gets out of 40-some lawsuits?
Yes, it is all outrageous. Yes, Obama made a concession that he didn't want to make, as all INTELLIGENT legislators must do. BUT, unless this somehow translates into not being able to hold the administration accountable in the future, I just don't get why everyone is so upset.
I mean, we are talking about people here. American people, making a decision to say "yes" to helping their government. Was it wise? No. Was it legal? No. Will I feel better if the CEO of AT&T goes to prison? HELL NO! I will feel better when, most importantly, our government ensures that something like this can never happen again by perfecting its monitoring programs, as the new bill does.
Further, I will feel better when the Bush administration officials who can be proven to have played a coercive role in these actions are held criminally responsible, including the (by then) former pathetic president.
So, please keep your eyes on the prize people. Let's get Gitmo closed, let's make sure that we are not profiling in airports and spying on our citizens. None of that is possible with McSame, so start fighting the good fight!
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
That was the statement issued by the Obama campaign late last year. Pretty clear? For the record, today Senator Obama voted against the filibuster, and then voted for the bill that has retroactive immunity.
It's hard to know what to say, isn't it? Obama will be a better president - by far - than either Bush or McCain. I still believe that. And I still believe he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton, although it is worth noting that Senator Clinton kept her promise: she voted both for the filibuster and against this horrible bill.
Some pundits are saying that Obama and his advisors didn't expect so much resistance on this issue, that they didn't realize how important it is to many thousands of Americans. But for me, it's deeper than that. The most disheartening aspect of Senator Obama's definitive reversal on this issue is that ... well, it turns out that it just isn't important to Barack Obama.
Barring some unforeseen miracle, I can't express just how disappointed I am today with the performance of leaders in the Senate today. By offering Telecom companies immunity, Republican and Democrat alike, our leaders have failed us.
This has been sold to the public as a fringe issue, of little importance to the electorate and I can assure you that it is not. By granting immunity we are evaporating Constitutional safeguards and forever damaging the concept of accountability and equal protection under the law. Immunity in this case means simply that we will never have true justice for the unlawful actions of the few, at the expense of the many. This is at the core of our democratic values, and not a fringe issue.
Did anyone ask, "is this good?", "is this right?", "is this legal?" Most importantly, did anyone think to ask, "Is this whole? Are we examining all of the facts and the choosing this course of action based on all of the information we have available to us and in full understanding of the consequences of our actions?" This to me is what is required before making a decision of the magnitude of summoning our nation's intelligence resources to spy on our own citizens. This takes integrity, and business leaders in the Telecom industry showed none.
Complicity in a terrible act is commission of a terrible act itself. Companies like AT&T willfully acted against all ethical standards and the best interests of their customers to provide illegal information at the request of the Executive Branch of the United States. And now our leaders, our voices for change, our protectors and our trust have turned their backs on us for them.
