Posts with the tag FCC

Seniors Struggling in the Aftermath of the DTV Transition

DeeNice, The Digital Dynamo — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:30:23 EDT

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.

########

DTV Minority Activist, "DeeNice, the Digital Dynamo", Pounds the Pavement to Ensure Underprivileged & Elderly Aren't Left in the Dark after the DTV Transition hits on and after June 12th

DeeNice, The Digital Dynamo — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:29:15 EDT

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

########

Local Non-Profit Donates & Installs DTV Boxes for local Ronald McDonald House

DeeNice, The Digital Dynamo — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:10:58 EDT

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.

Free City-Wide DTV Event DC Armory Washington DC Saturday April 4, 2009

DeeNice, The Digital Dynamo — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:46:19 EDT

Press Release
FREE City-Wide DTV Conversion Clinic, Saturday, April 4 at the DC Armor Football Gamewww.DTVoutreach.org
The Urban Progressive Foundation in partnership with the MDCD Broadcasters and the DC Armor arena football team will be hosting a free city-wide DTV Conversion Clinic at the DC Armory, at the inaugural DC Armor football game. This is the largest outreach effort and includes not only awareness, but also coupon registration and redemption, as well as DTV converter box installations.
This city-wide initiative was launched to help are residents stay connected after the June 12th national transition to Digital television. Presently approximately 30% of the area's citizens will be affected - most of them elderly and underserved. But the national transition to Digital TV will affect everyone, so this One-Stop Shop clinic is for all DC area residents.
If you want to know more about the National Transition to Digital TV, how it will impact you, and how to be ready, come to the DC Armor "fan zone" on Saturday, April 4, from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m.
The free DTV Clinic will be part of the pre-game activities marking the inaugural home game of the DC Armor, the new professional arena football team.
From 5:00 - 7:00 pm, the DC Armor "fan zone" will also feature a DJ, bar-b-que, an appearance by the DC Armor mascot, and games and activities for children including a bounce house. Everyone is encouraged to come out, have some fun, cheer on the Armor, and get prepared for the DTV Transition.
This DTV Outreach will assist local residents who:

need to register for free federal $40.00 DTV converter box coupons
had a $40.00 coupon that expired
need to redeem coupons
have questions or need assistance with converter box installation
want an on-site demonstration or technical assistance

Denise "DeeNice"Rhodes
Executive Director
The Urban Progressive Foundation
www.DTVoutreach.org

In the relentless pursuit in taming the DTV Technology Tiger

Communications, the FCC, and the Public Interest

wtrwmn44 — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:36:13 EDT

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?

To promote change in America

Charles from Longmont, CO — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 03:45:12 EST

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

No $40 Digital Converter Box Coupons - Campaign to Push The Date Back!

DeeNice, The Digital Dynamo — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:00:59 EST

The Urban Progressive Foundation (TUPF) is launching a national campaign to have Congress - Push the February 17th, 2009 analog shut off date back for 6 to 12 months (www.pushthedateback.org). There are over 21 million Americans currently, who risk having their TVs go dark; most are Americans without a voice in the matter.

A disproportionate number are elderly, minorities, disable and rural. Our 501c3 nonprofit is speaking for the voice-less. This campaign has a short window of time to garner results and one of my twitter friends- Shireen Mitchell (digitalsista) recommended your organization to aid this critical and time sensitive issue.

Currently, TUPF is 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. Recently TUPF sponsored a Press Conference Panel/Forum at the National Press Club Topic: Crisis Management for Underserved Communities, Impacted by the DTV Transition. We are a 501 c 3, with no funding but great passion. DeeNice Rhodes, executive director has done workshops, educational trainings, and hands-on events to help these "underserved, yet well deserved" get digitally connected. Through "The Urban Progressive Foundation" these grassroots efforts are helping to train, educate, assist and connect our communities to Transition to Digital Television before and after the Feb. 17 2009.

15 Steps Grandma Needs to Make to Install Her DTV Box

DeeNice, The Digital Dynamo — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:52:26 EST

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 switch
3. 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!

FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON FRANCHISING (CABLE TV)

WallyStuart — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:48:49 EST

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

Please Help Stop the Reactor Expansion at Plant Vogtle,et al

Dianne — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:33:35 EST

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.

Always keep in mind the massive subsidies given to this mature industry by our government using our tax dollars, most of which are freely given to foreign owned companies in the nuclear power industry. France, Japan, England, and Germany.They are the primary benefactors of our tax dollars assigned to Research & Development in the nuclear industry. These foreign companies are responsible for our safety and our nuclear energy production. In addtion, the heavy manfacturing jobs that our tax dollars subsidize don't take place in this country so those jobs are also off shore (over seas).

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

Would Barack Obama support a study by the FCC of telecom abuse of PEG access TV by a major telecom provider?

WallyStuart — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:17:51 EDT

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. Martin
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Martin: ·

As you know, the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government heid a hearing
on September 17, 2008 on public, educational, and governmentai (PEG) access to cable television.
The subcommittee appreciates the participation of the Commissionʼs Media Bureau Chief, Monica
Shah Desai, at this hearing.

We recognize that there are considerabie changes occurring in cable television, including the
transition 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, local
information and opinions, and emergency communications. Changes in the cabie environment should
not 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 concerns
include:

• 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. Witnesses
expressed concern that this places PEG channels well away from the basic tier of channels
and may require some consumers to rent or purchase converter equipment to view PEG channels.

----------------------------------
The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
September 30, 2008
Page 2

• in its U-verse cable service, AT&T delivers PEG programming in a manner that is different
from its delivery of commercial channels. The service offers PEG programming via an
Internet-based video stream at a single channel location and requires the viewer to load
PEG programming through a series of menus. Witnesses told the subcommittee that this
method of PEG delivery is siow and technologically inferior to how commercial channels
are delivered over U-verse service. They cited inferior picture quality, lack of closed
captioning or second audio programming, incompatibiiity with programmable recording
devices, and absence of program Iistings for PEG programs.

• Concerns also were raised about the degradation of public safety communications on
AT&Tʼs U-verse service. U-verseʼs emergency aiert system procedures were described in
testimony as "cumbersome and inefficient" and as not supporting emergency alert messages
that would override or scroll on broadcast channels. If an emergency alert message
directing viewers to a PEG channel for more information cannot be displayed, and if a
viewer cannot immediately access a PEG channel with emergency information, we question
whether emergency communications are being delivered effectively.

Ms. Desai made the following statement at the hearing: "The statute requires PEG channels to
be placed on the basic service tier aiong with your local broadcast channeis. So to piace additional
burdens on consumers to have to find their PEG channels seems to defeat the purpose of the basic
service tier."

We agree with this statement and beiieve that the concerns we heard at the hearing represent
evidence 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 are
contrary 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. Sorrano
Ranking Member                                                                  Chairman
Subcommittee on Financiai Services                                      Subcommittee on Financiai Services
and General Government                                                      and General Government

David R. Obey

Chairman

Committee on Appropriations

-----------------------

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
September 30, 2008
Page 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.

Congress is looking at how the FCC is enforcing regulations Re: support of PEG access cable TV; Does Barack Obama believe in federal regulatory protecton for PEG access?

WallyStuart — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:18:01 EDT

For immediate release
September 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/

What would a Tech Czar in an Obama administration do for cities and towns, franchising cable TV, and local PEG access? The following report in the National Journal gives no hint.

WallyStuart — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:16:27 EDT

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

One Station, Uncrictical, with Fascist Totalitarianism for All!

Henry M — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:50:09 EDT

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

Common Cause comparison of Obama and McCain Re: Media Reform Issues -- no info about Obama concerning Public Access (PEG)

WallyStuart — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:47:40 EDT

http://www.commonblog.com/story/2008/8/22/123647/812

Obama and McCain on Media Reform Issues By Jon Bartholomew
Posted on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:36:47 PM EST

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

Again -- Barack and Telecom Reform; what regulatory role does he see for cities and towns in franchising cable TV?

WallyStuart — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:55:54 EDT

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?

Wallace Stuart

Propaganda vs. News: A note for the FCC

Robert from Wauconda, IL — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:24:23 EDT

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?

"President" Label on McSicko Spot

ZapDuff — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:18:08 EDT

First... view the new 30-second McSicko Spot... watch the first few seconds closely!

You may have witnessed this issue was raised last night on MSNBC, by Rachel Maddow. In a clear case of deceptive advertising, the McSicko Campaign fraudulently uses a President McCain super at the top of their commercial touting their health care plan. Never mind, the plan has no substance.... the REAL complaint here is FALSE ADVERTISING... by claiming their candidate is already serving in the nation's highest elected office!

The bottom line (in case you want to skip the full story:) I discovered the local FBI office will accept such complaints! But getting there took an afternoon on the phone. The details follow:

Liz Trotta's death wish for Obama, FCC response

Patrick Frank — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:25:45 EDT

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

Fairness Doctrine: Do Not Resuscitate

ZapDuff — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:29:37 EDT

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...

John McCain is violating campaign finance laws and getting away with it

Mikeystyle — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:38:15 EDT

John McCain has NO grounds for complaining about Obama’s financing.

Back when McCain was hurting for money, he told the Federal Election Commission that he would accept public matching funds during the primary season. He used the promise of those funds to secure loans that kept his campaign afloat.

Then when McCain started doing better, winning primaries and securing donors, he suddenly reneged and decided to go without public financing because it limited the amount of money he could spend.

This is about more than a promise by McCain—it is FRAUD. When he told the FEC he would accept public matching funds (and the included spending limits) he bound himself to abide by it—especially when he used the promise of those matching funds to borrow money.

That’s like getting a mortgage on a house you never bought.

McCain’s move was criticized by FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, who said McCain could NOT just arbitrarily decide to go back on this public financing pledge.

So why doesn’t the FEC take action on this issue? Because the FCC only has two commissioners at the moment—four seats are vacant. Republicans are holding up the approval of nominees to the commission, thereby keeping it from taking action.

Gee, I wonder why the Republicans wouldn’t want the FEC to go after their presidential candidate for committing such an obvious fraud?

Let’s raise hell over this issue. Write to the media and let people know. Here’s more info:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccains_fec_problem.php

Take Action Now!! Stop this Madness!!

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:13:33 EDT

This is Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" His "objective" is to cause riots at the Democratic National Convention, ie, burning cars, fights, rioting in the streets, "just like Chicago 1968 riots", then blaming it on African Americans. http://www.recreate68.org/

Now Hillary wants to LITERALLY tear apart the Democratic Party if she can't have the nomination.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2026

Check out what's going on outside of CNN, MSNBC, etc. in the "real" world. They are not reporting the facts as they happen!I just think these actions are THE most UNAMERICAN acts that could possibly happen in this day and age.

We should all be outraged by this!

Ask Howard Dean to file a criminal complaint with the FCC against Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos". You CANNOT incite a riot over the airwaves in this country. It's the same laws broken as if to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Write Howard Dean here about both above issues: http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

Write the FCC here about Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos": http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_obscene.html

Dear Mr. Future President Obama,

Rebecca from Naples, NY — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:22:30 EST

I’m sure you’ve heard it all before. I’m really excited about your campaign and its possibilities for the future. I’m one of the hundreds of thousands who have contributed to a political campaign for the first time because of you. I’ve searched for your name on YouTube, I’ve read every NYTimes editorial and listened to every public radio podcast about your campaign, I’ve counted delegates and pondered superdelegates, I daydream about who you might choose as running mate, secretary of state, attorney general… I’m amazed that there are still people in this country who aren’t yet convinced you’re the best candidate, by far.

But imagine a typical someone: mid-thirties, unmarried, in relationships time after time only to be disappointed by each one in turn. One lover cheats, one can’t let go of earlier commitments, another is completely self-absorbed. And all of them eventually lie. So when a new flirtation comes along, it’s perfectly natural to feel some apprehension along with the attraction.

That’s just how I’m feeling now. And I imagine a lot of people, of both genders, feel similarly. I’m hoping with all my heart that you become the Democratic presidential nominee, and that you subsequently kick major Republican backside in the general election. But here’s some advice for afterwards, to help keep the tarnish off the delicate relationship you will have started with the American people.

Don’t be a politician, be a government representative. Of course the Democratic Party and a lot of other factions will have helped you achieve your goal of the presidency, but never forget that your post-election responsibility is to ALL the people of the country. When you make decisions, make them for civic, moral, and honorable reasons, not political ones. In a recent New Yorker article about New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer, he replies to a question about moral guidance by saying “… the toughest decisions and the right answers to those tough decisions are still the ones that you come to when you just sit down and you say, ‘O.K., what are we trying to do?’ What are the right moral values to guide it? Ignore all the politics. Ignore the screaming and shouting.”

If you really want to change Washington, you will have to ignore the inevitable screaming and shouting that will come when you push against the status quo. Instead of talking politics, develop the 21st-century equivalent of FDR’s fireside chats and communicate directly with us, clearly, honestly, and often. Encourage the American people to get educated about the issues, not by preaching or drowning us in details, but by teaching and leading by example. In a recent interview with Bill Moyers about her recent book “The Age of American Unreason”, author Susan Jacoby said that the President’s responsibility would be better defined as “Educator-In-Chief” rather than “Commander-In-Chief”. When you embark on a new foreign policy agenda, show us the map, introduce us to the people, give us the background and the perspectives. For health-care and other domestic issues, talk to us clearly about the pros and cons of various approaches and explain your choices. Show the American people that conservation equals patriotism, consuming less does not mean giving in, and a State of the Union address can be as gripping as an episode of American Idol. Give us an avenue for feedback other than polls. Then, when you need support for change against old-school politics, come to us. From your mouth to our ears and back to our Congressional representatives. You’ve been saying that it takes working together to accomplish meaningful change, and that will continue to be true after the election as well.

Change the Bush White House of Secrets and Deception to the Obama White House of Openness and Truth. Renounce the unconstitutional Executive privileges the Bush White House has procured and exploited and bring our government back into balance. Remind Congress of their responsibility to demand accountability from all areas of government and encourage their investigations on behalf of the American people. Ferret out and squash the activities that have been going on in our intelligence and military operations that have caused us to lose the respect of the rest of the world. Publicly take action against the use of torture tactics, eradicate Blackwater-type mercenaries from our military, act in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and close Guantanamo Bay. Reconfirm that, in this democracy, we are all indeed equal under the law. Last but not least, in your cleaning, scrub deep down into the fluorescent halls of government agencies like the FCC and the FDA. Remind them of their mandate to work on behalf of the people of this country, not the business entities. Get Congress to help you, and the people will help them.

Finally, in regards to the idea of “re-branding America”, I know you’re the best one for the job. We need to reinstate confidence in American values around the world and show the rest of the world that we are one of them, and willing to listen as well as talk. Help yourself by finding as many equally hopeful and dedicated diplomats and public servants as possible, people who are wise to the ways of the world without having been jaded by them in the process.

I know this is a really tall order, and more than anyone should expect from a new affair. Don’t worry, we understand change doesn’t happen overnight, and we can be patient. But from “Day One”, you need to show your commitment in this relationship, and prove that you’re serious about working with us on this change thing. I’ll vote with my heart, then hope, watch, and wait for your call to join in.

[this is a re-post of this letter from my own website, originally dated February 18. At this current date, post-Texas and Ohio, I feel even stronger that Obama needs to focus on details and approaches and specifics for his campaign to continue to be successful. Please don't let Hillary steal the nomination through her underhanded tactics!]

The Real McCain Scandal (Hint: It's not about sex)

signsSansSignifieds — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:03:31 EST

Has Mr. Straight Talk, scourge of Washington lobbyists, been doing their bidding? See for yourself:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/02/21/mccain_pressed_fcc_in_case_involving_major_contributor/

Theory of change

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:35:40 EST

Just what is Barack's 'theory of change'?

He has a lot of ideas of things to fix in many sectors, but what about the big structural things holding back our democracy?

1. Unequal access to Washington (i.e. too much influence by big business in the name of "free speech"), and 'free speech' enabled only to those who can buy time on privately owned media networks. This is causing groups in self-deterministic states like Vermont and Alaska to agitate for secession from the Union. These people believe this corporate dominance of civic affairs violates the Constitution, and the rest of us are hardly even aware or able to articulate the issue and how it effects us as individuals and citizens, because media corporations rather than a true 'fourth estate' are one such corporate sector dominating the civic arena.

2. Communications infrastructure that exploits working Americans for their 'consumer potential' but doesn't give them back any dignity of self-determination and real choice (i.e. an FCC that instead of advocating for citizens, advocates for licensees of broadcast and other media franchises to grow and make their businesses more ubiquitous and profitable all the while diminishing the diversity of voices heard, and filling the 'passive media' space with nothing but entertainment, sports, and advertising messages; critical balanced news is non-existent for the average American unless he/she actively goes out the find it on the Internet, yet we're hated abroad because of policies hidden from us, and can no longer travel freely or expect our USD to be of any value), Barack has to re-enact the "fourth estate" as was envisaged by the founding fathers if he wants real change to the minds and behaviors of Americans in all sectors.

3. Misguided notion that the 'free market' can provide a 'public good' such as healthcare. Adam Smith didn't agree it could. The market isn't free anyway with the state licensing required for health insurers. They are limited competition licenses and as such should provide fair access to all risks like in auto. Catastrophic health risk cannot be pooled by individual small companies, and so people get priced out of the system as their risk increases, because the companies are not adequately pooling risk. We need new approaches to reinsurance in global financial markets to properly pool these risks, and new structures for participating companies, before we can get to universal healthcare solutions using multi-payer, and multi-provider solutions.

4. Pharma companies get to count their enormous inefficient marketing costs into the calculus for drug development. They have been off loading the scientific risk of drug discovery to Universities and other endowment or Federally funded programs for years, focusing instead on the costly and lengthy FDA process and marketing to millions of doctors as their raison d'etre. The FDA process itself can be improved by greater infrastructure for sharing clinical trial results to prevent mistakes in future and standards for human tissue donor collections and greater use of computer simulations of compound actions before going into costly animal and risky human trials. Meanwhile, we are being forced to pay for their inefficiencies and inability to change through our medicare/medicaid, not to mention our private insurance premiums used to pay for high prices of drugs in a few categories, and the non-existence of drugs in most categories.

5. Misguided notions that Federal tax cuts, and Trickle-down theories lead to job growth, when it is proven that state and local tax abatements do lead to business and job growth (and fortunes for entrepreneurs) at local levels, and Trickle-down has resulted in nothing but further disparity of the wealth landscape, and fewer resources and social cohesion for development of the middle class' human capital.

6. Undying loyalty to allies who are following outmoded methods of resolving their own political problems. EU is showing that soft power using economic influence can end terrorism (i.e. Northern Ireland, and IRA), and expand sphere of allies from the terrorist axis (i.e. Libya). Relying on outmoded models is only leading to further violence, for which mounting huge occupation forces, secret policing networks in contravention of US constitution and Geneva conventions, and building actual walls remains the only and eternally costly solution. Soft power applied to Iran can encourage the political reform groups working in great isolation and danger by offering greater potential economic security than can be offered by the hardliners, who must resort to shooting off rockets, and bellicose anti-Western rhetoric to show their teeth to voters. Greater economic security and closer association with positive aspects of alliance with the US can begin to change minds poisoned by hardliners, and our own misguided support of the Shah's totalitarian dictatorship.

7. Wars on drugs and immigration using endless outmoded notions of police forces and walls, paramilitary forces inside sovereign countries, and stringent imprisonment for petty offenders and users, without addressing the root causes of demand in affluent classes, and poverty and poor education which causes people to act as foot soldiers out of desperation, or flee across the border to the US. What about 'soft economic power' applied to business and wealth leaders in Mexico to force them to provide developmental policies for their own people? We make it too easy for them to 'out-source' the hard work of their own economic development by sending their poor to the US. What about 'treatment' programs for users, to cut demand, and rehabilitation/job training for petty offenders? What about pharmaceutical markets for opium in Afghanistan like in Turkey to provide legal cash from the West to farmers to engender trust and connection to us?

8. Reliance on and pride in the Foundation sector for addressing social ills in America, which are uncoordinated and unaccountable to any standards or metrics to justify their tax-exemption status. Many highly successful programs could be replicated across America by Foundations to spread success, but because there are no clear channels and 'ideas markets' for this cross-pollination, many successful ones are never transferred to new markets where they could achieve success. 'Whimsy' and 'pet' projects get funded by well-meaning novice philanthropists and then die due to non-success, which is a waste of tax-exempt money.

We need to hear more 'structural ideas' that can blow the Republicans out of the water, and stand up in the coming debates.

The Hardware Hammerlock on consumers

John Messerly — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:08:39 EST

The vogue in high technology is to tie hardware to a service- so that consumers are prevented from buying anything from competitors if they use a vendor's provided hardware. The vendors seek to prevent consumers from acquiring hardware from anyone else that can. Cell phone companies do it with phones. Cable and satellite companies do it with Digital video recorders.

One might think there ought to be laws restricting such shenanigans.... It turns out that in many cases such laws are in place. The problem is that the Bush administration seems to believe that enforcing communications law is optional.

Case in point: Digital video recorders. The 1996 Telecom law was passed by a republican congress and specified that Cable and satellite companies open their networks to third party consumer electronics devices. Similar to how the telephone company once prohibitted consumers from buying phones from independent companies and attaching them to their networks, such television distributors do not allow third party devices to the same access to their networks that their leased equipment enjoys. Section 629 of the 1996 Telecom law was intended to change that. It instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to:

"...assure the commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."

Over a decade after this became law,

1. Cable companies are not in compliance. The cablecard 1.0 standard was put in place prior to Bush's FCC appointments. It only provided partial ("one way") access to Cable networks. Since Bush took office progress has halted. There is still no FCC approved method for full access to cable networks. Consumer electronics companies manufacturing digital television devices such as Microsoft Vista video recorders, or Tivo Digital Video recorders (DVRs) are forced by contract with the cable company consortium to offer devices which do not have important features such as support for Video on Demand, Switched video, or Pay per view.

2. Satellite companies (DirectTv, Dish) are also not in compliance. The 1996 law allowed that waivers would be allowed only for a limited period of time, and only for the purpose of enabling some new technology. Over ten years after being granted a waiver, it is difficult to understand on what basis Satellite companies can claim to be offering a new techology. It is difficult to undersand how the FCC could believe that congress intended that a "limitted period of time" would include a period as long as a decade.

3. Internet Protocol TV- AT&T U-verse, and Verizon's glass fiber FIOS network are not in compliance. In the case of AT&T, it did not apply for a waiver, nor has the FCC made it clear that the 1996 Telecom also applies to them.

CE companies have complained to the FCC, as have consumers in multiple filings. Clearly, the Bush administration feels in is not obligated to enforce laws it does not agree with. Communications companies, in this case video programming distributors, have an understandable motive to oppose third party devices. By controlling what these devices may and may not be used for, consumers are locked into the product offerings from the particular cable, satellite or IPTV provider. For example, no device capable of accessing a network's full services is capable of accessing programming from an alternative provider of video content. That's not an accident. Third party devices like Vista machines or Tivos can access alternative video content from YouTube, Amazon, or iTunes, but are not allowed the access to the Cable networks necessary for video on demand, pay per view or switched video.

The result of this refusal to implement the 1996 Telecom law is a market imbalance that retards competition and technical innovation. When companies enjoy such market power especially over communications central to fundamental activities of a society, there are grave social consequences. When the executive branch decides not to faithfully enforce laws, alert communications giants are only too happy to take advantage of the situation.

The FCC needs to inform the cable, satelite and Telco's that section 629 of the 1996 Telecom law applies to all of them and that third party devices shall have full unfettered access to their networks as directed by the 1996 law or they will face FCC penalties. The result will be greater price competition between suppliers of video content, greater competition for variety of content, and greater innovation in devices that can navigate video content.

One of America's strong export business is in entertainment. Constricted distribution of entertainment by consolidated networks that use technology to horizontally tie their players to their content makes America weaker economically, not stronger. Time and again history has shown us that tolerance of such market imbalances has resulted in the demise of once thriving businesses.

FCC Processes Show Need for Obama Tech Plan

Gigi B. Sohn — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:02:09 EST

Hi! My name is Gigi Sohn, and I run an organization in Washington DC called Public Knowledge, which working to defend your rights in the emerging digital culture. Our biggest issues include preserving an open and universally accessible Internet and ensuring that copyright and patent laws do not inhibit creativity, innovation, competition and free speech. So Public Knowledge does a lot of work at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Copyright Office, the Patent and Trademark Office and in Congress.

In November, I was honored to be asked to evaluate Barack Obama’s technology and innovation plan, and I gave it very high marks. This should come as no surprise, since Senator Obama’s plan explicitly embraces the principle of network neutrality to preserve an open Internet; calls for increased broadband deployment; and recognizes the need for a balanced copyright and patent system that “promote[s] civic discourse, innovation and investment.”

Today I want to discuss a different and equally important part of the Obama Technology and Innovation plan: that which seeks to use technological means to make government more transparent and accountable and to give citizens the tools to participate in government processes. Among other things, the plan would:

•    Make government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of the data to comment, derive value and take action in their own communities;
•    Establish pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies;
•    Requiring Executive Branch appointees and administrative agencies to conduct their business in public and to employ technological tools to allow citizens to participate and be heard in these meetings;
•    Provide a website, search engine and other web tools that enable citizens to track the influence of money in the political process;
•    Create the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer to ensure that the government has the right technological infrastructure and that it makes its records open and accessible.

Nothing points out the dire need for these kind of steps than the way that the FCC functions today, particularly as issues like net neutrality, broadband competition and media ownership have captured the attention of the general public. Despite the increasing importance and awareness of how government regulates (and in the case of this administration, refuses to regulate) our media and telecommunications systems, the FCC remains an agency dominated by opaque processes, corporate lobbyists and perhaps one of the most user-unfriendly websites in all of government (especially ironic for the agency that is expert on communications).   It is for these and other reasons that both House Energy and Commerce Chair John Dingell (D-MI) and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have called for inquiries into the FCC’s procedures.

Lack of Transparency: Despite the good intentions of the Government in Sunshine Act, its requirement that a formal meeting be held if more than two Commissioners meet places power in unappointed staffers. The staffers negotiate with each other and the votes are tallied before the Commission’s monthly meeting takes place. Thus, the formal meetings are staged events where the outcome is predetermined and the Commissioners come armed with pre-prepared statements. The public has no voice in these meetings.

The FCC’s processes also place inordinate power in the Chairman’s office. The Chairman decides when to send a proposed final decision to the other Commissioners and in the recent controversial decision on media ownership, the decision was circulated just two weeks before the meeting date. These last minute efforts have been exacerbated over the past several months by FCC meetings that have started long past their published starting times. Indeed, three FCC meetings this year have started 9 or more hours late, and the November meeting started 12 hours late - at 10 PM! Needless to say, few members of the public were watching the webcast or sitting in the FCC’s meeting room at that time of day.

In addition, what FCC rules there are to ensure that the public understands the inner workings of the Commission are largely ignored by industry advocates. The so-called “ex parte” rules require advocates to submit a letter that provides a detailed description of their meetings with FCC Commissioners and staff. Many industry advocates submit the most barebones ex parte letters that reveal almost nothing about their meetings.

Public Input is Largely Ignored: In 2003, and again this year, public sentiment was overwhelmingly against increased consolidation in the mass media. In public hearings across the nation and in thousands of comments to the FCC, ordinary Americans made clear that the homogenization and delocalization of local media was bad for them, their communities and the country. In these cases, and in other proceedings with significant input from the public, the FCC took little note of, and ruled against the public will.

The Revolving Door: With broadcasters, cablecasters, telephone, wireless and technology companies all doing business with the FCC, the future job enticements for an FCC staffer or Commissioner are lucrative indeed. A staffer or Commissioner may not want to step on two many industry toes so as to ensure a future position with industry.   This is not crooked – it is simply human. But the one-year prohibition on an FCC staffer coming back to advocate at the agency provides little disincentive to engage in this kind of behavior.

The Obama plan to open up government data processes through technology will not solve all of these problems, but it will force the FCC and other executive and administrative agencies to be more transparent and responsive to the public that they serve. Even more important, it will start a conversation long ignored, about how technology can lift the veil of secrecy from government and make our government more responsive to the citizenry it is tasked to serve.

Obama says FCC chooses ‘consolidation over diversity’

FreedomOfSpeechForObama2008 — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:20:14 EDT

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama criticized the FCC for its pro-corporate position of “consolidation over diversity” and called for a tightening of government regulation of broadcasters.

“I believe the FCC media-ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest,” Obama said in a statement released to news organizations. “We should be doing more to encourage diversity in ownership in broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets and the expression of diverse viewpoints.”

Obama called for “greater clarity” of broadcasters’ public-interest obligations. The Illinois senator said he supported new rules “promoting greater coverage of local issues and greater responsiveness of broadcasters to the communities they operate in.”

He also urged greater FCC scrutiny of broadcast station license renewals and more public input into the process.

SOURCE

Obama Urges FCC to Reduce Length of TV Station Licenses

Roseville City School Board Member — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:12:52 EDT

Obama Urges FCC to Reduce Length of TV Station Licenses

By Ira Teinowitz of TV Week
September 21, 2007

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is throwing out more hints that the Federal Communications Commission would have a somewhat different focus if he wins the election.

At Thursday night's FCC media ownership hearing in Chicago, an aide read a statement in which the Illinois senator complimented the FCC for holding the hearing but questioned some of the FCC's past focus on easing ownership rules.

Sen. Obama said the FCC should reduce the length of TV station licenses and get more input, more often, on how well stations are serving community needs.

"I believe that broadcaster license-renewal requests--the periodic review required to ensure that broadcasters are complying with their public-interest obligations to local communities for using the public spectrum--should require greater FCC scrutiny and public input and occur more frequently."

Sen. Obama has been critical of TV and the FCC before, attacking TV's "coarsening" in a speech to the Kaiser Family Foundation, but Thursday's statement was the most specific he's gotten on other changes. He also cited concerns about diversity in media ownership and media content.

"I want all of you to know how important I think it is that we have a national, inclusive, open and transparent discussion on the government's responsibility to ensure that the nation's media marketplace reflects a diversity of opinions and views, meets the needs of local communities and ensures fair competition," the senator said in the statement.

"I believe that the nation's media ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest. We should be doing much more to encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints and establish greater clarity in the public-interest obligations of broadcasters occupying the nation's spectrum.

"Instead of greater consolidation, I fully endorse the call for new rules promoting greater coverage of local issues and greater responsiveness of broadcasters to the communities they operate in."

Last night's ownership hearing at the Rainbow-Push Coalition headquarters on Chicago's South Side was the second to last of six hearings the FCC is planning.

Before the meeting, FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin met with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board, and according to today's paper, pointed to the Tribune Co.'s problem with the FCC's cross-ownership rule as an example of why changes to that rule are likely to be debated.

The cross-ownership rule bars companies that own a local TV station or newspaper in a market from buying each other. The Tribune Co.'s recent sale to Sam Zell and an employee stock ownership plan could force the sale of WGN-TV or the Chicago Tribune if the rule isn't changed. Tribune also is in violation of the rule in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Hartford, Conn., but has requested waivers in those markets.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Martin told the paper's editors the cross-ownership rule is the only FCC ownership rule that hasn't changed since 1996. He cited court support of a change, saying an appellate court in 2003 that overturned sweeping FCC ownership rule changes indicated the ownership changes may not be justified. Public-interest groups have questioned that interpretation of the decision.