Mediageek Radioshow Notes for April 16, 2009

On this week’s show we led with Streetwise‘s financial troubles, listening to an excerpt of the Feb. 5 interview with Production and Marketing Director Ben Cook and Editor-in-Chief Suzanne Haney. Streetwise is receiving only about $60,000 of the typical $120,000 it gets in foundation support. We made note of a recent New York Times article that reported on other street newspapers doing comparatively well in this rotten economy.

Most of the rest of the show was dedicated to Time-Warner Cable announcement today (April 16) that it was going to hold off on “testing” bandwidth caps in Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, NY and Greensboro, NC. There’s lots of good reporting on the issue over at Ars Technica.

The podcast will be available this weekend.

Mediageek Radioshow Notes for April 9, 2009

I’m going to try and get back in the saddle with posting show notes for each week’s radioshow so that listeners can check out some of the news items and other relevant stuff that comes up during the show. Since the show is produced live, often featuring live guests, I’ll be treating these posts as dynamic documents. This means I’ll add links to stuff that comes up spontaneously during the show after the live broadcast is over, and maybe even after the podcast version is posted.

So, here’s the notes for the April 9, 2009 edition of the radioshow (now online):

Bloomberg – Todd Shields: FCC Head Says Agency Should Reconsider Newspaper Ownership Rule

Huffington Post – Jeff Jarvis To Newspaper Moguls: You Blew It

ArsTechnica – Julian Sanchez: AP launches campaign against Internet “misappropriation”

FCC’s Press Release on National Broadband Plan (PDF).

FCC’s Notice of Inquiry on National Broadband Plan (PDF).

May 2 Radioshow Notes & Links

Links and notes related to the May 2 mediageek radioshow:

• FCC Proceeding on localism: http://www.fcc.gov/localism
• Public Knowledge’s Orphan Works Act page: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow
• Matthew Lasar’s Ars Technica article: NPR’s war on Low Power FM: the laws of physics vs. politics

You can read the full test of the show’s news headlines after the jump.
Read more »

Year-End Review Pt. 2

The 2nd part of my year-end review radioshow with John Anderson from DIYmedia.net is online now. We cover the FCC’s all-but-elimination of the cross-ownership ban, and John catches us up with the year in FCC enforcement action against unlicensed stations.

You can download the show at the radioshow page, or just listen here:

Go get Adobe Flash Player!

Headlines from the Oct. 19 radioshow: FCC Fines Two Broadcasters for Armstrong Williams’ Fake News; Martin Pushing for Quick Wrap Up to Ownership Rules Review

These are the news headlines as read on the Oct. 19, 2007 edition of the mediageek radioshow.

FCC Fines Two Broadcasters for Armstrong Williams’ Fake News

The battle against fake news took a new turn this week when the FCC levied $76,000 in fines against two broadcast companies because they failed to inform viewers that columnist Armstrong Williams was being paid by the US Department of Education for his remarks made on their stations.

In 2003 Williams secretly signed on with the department to promote NO Child Left Behind in exchange for $240,000. He did not reveal this quid pro quo in his subsequent media appearances.

$40,000 of the fines goes to Sonshine Family Television Inc., licensee of WBPH-TV in Bethlehem, Pa., for airing five episodes of “The Right Side with Armstrong Williams.”

Sinlcair Broadcasting, one of the largest owners of TV stations, was hit with $36,000 for airing an episode of “America’s Black Forum” in September of 2004, which also included Williams talking about the legislation. Sinclair owns several TV stations in mediageek’s back yard of central Illinois, including WICD 15 in Champaign and WICS 20 in Springfield.

The FCC says these appearances by Williams constitute a violation of sponsorship identification rules because Williams’ financial relationship was not revealed. For its part, Sinclair told the FCC that the company was not aware of Williams’ deal with the Department of Education. The Commission responds that the fine is justified because the program Sinclair aired was provided as a complete production by Williams and therefore Sinclair was at least obligated to identify that fact.

The FCC’s investigation was spurred on by a complaint filed by the media reform group Free Press along with thousands of additional public complaints.

FCC Chair Martin Pushes Fast Completion of Ownership Review

In other FCC news, it looks like the effort to relax media ownership rules isn’t dead, it’s just sleeping. While the Kevin Martin-led FCC has put a nicer face on its review of media ownership rules than it did under Michael Powell–by holding multiple public hearings on the issue–that doesn’t mean Martin is any less driven to deliver an early Christmas present to consolidation-driven big media.

Martin is reported to be circulating a version of new rules that would greatly relax the newspaper-TV station cross-ownership restrictions, and that he’s pushing to wrap up the rulemaking by mid-December.

The problem with that timetable is that public comments on the FCC’s research reports are due the last week of October, and reply comments are due mid-November. That doesn’t really give the Commission much time to review the thousands of comments from the public before Martin hopes to have the new rules voted on.

It’s very rare that the FCC has only a month or so after the last comments are filed to make a ruling, and it’s even rarer on such a politically important subject as media ownership.

The decision that Martin is pushing for has the potential to devastate the diversity of news reporting in most cities and media markets. By allowing the co-owership of TV stations and newspapers the number of independent newsrooms will dwindle, greatly impacting the number of local stories that get reported on. Major media companies like Tribune have been begging for this change for years. Tribune, especially is really depending on it to seal the deal on its sale to Chicago financier Zell Miller, since the company’s grandfathered exemption of the co-ownership rule for the Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV are under review in the sale. But it’s hard to believe that any media giant will be able to resist the cost-cutting benefits of combining and cutting TV and newspaper staffs, despite whatever empty promises they’ll offer the FCC and Congress.

Congress is already weighing in on the news of Martin’s push strategy. Democrat Senator Byron Dorgan and Republican Senator Trent Lott sent a letter to Martin telling him that they do not believe that the FCC “adequately studied the impact of media consolidation on local programming.” They further urged that, “the FCC should not rush forward and repeat mistakes of the past.”

Even pushing against the wishes of congresspeople from both parties, it’s likely that Martin can count on support from the majority Republican commissioners. However, it’s rarely politically advantageous to pass a major regulatory change with a 3 to 2 vote. Some sort of concessions will probably have to be made to the Commission’s two Democrats, who both have been strong critics of relaxing ownership regs.

Show notes for Feb. 16 radioshow: FCC makes LPFM exceptions; SFLR has its day in court

John Anderson from DIYmedia.net was my guest for the Feb. 16 edition of the mediageek radioshow [listen now]. We talked about a couple of exceptions the FCC has made with regard to issuing low-power FM licenses. First, the FCC has given “special temporary authority” to a former FM pirate in Goldfield, Nevada — read articles at DIYmedia and Radio Currents Online. Second, the Commission has offered a LPFM license to a group complaining about the loss of noncommercial classical music programming resulting from the sale of a station — read DIYmedia’s article.

We also discussed San Francisco Liberation Radio’s appearance in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Valentine’s Day. There wasn’t much to report from except for a short announcement on SFLR’s website:

Every dog has his day. We had ours. Victory doesn’t look too hopeful, but who knows? One judge was definitely agin us and kept interrupting our counsel.:-(
“JUST WHAT WOULD DUE PROCESS HAVE GAINED YOU? 4 MORE DAYS OF ILLEGAL BROADCASTING????”
The other 2 were more polite. And they asked better questions like (to the counsel for the government): “Do you really think they would have moved the station?” (had we had foreknowledge of the seizure by going before a judge first). Would we have? You can answer that question for yourselves.
And now let’s have a surge of low-power, community radio!!!

This morning I found a report filed in the Oroville Mercury-Register (quick plug: the radioshow is heard Wed. at 3 PM on KRBS 107.1 FM in Oroville). Here’s a bit more of the judges’ questioning:

Unlike print or online communications, broadcasting over public airwaves is still “inherently limited” and needs “a traffic cop to keep straight who’s on what frequency,” (Circuit Judge Richard) Clifton said. “It’s the FCC, not the court, that’s the traffic cop. … I’m not sure this is anything but an empty exercise.”

Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher suggested the station’s operators “ought to be lobbying Congress to change the statute.” Vermeulen replied that they are, but still deserved a day in court to make their constitutional arguments before their equipment was seized.

Justice Department appellate attorney Eric Feigin argued that another judicial circuit has found there’s no due process right under this statute before equipment is seized, and no First Amendment right to broadcast without a license.

Doesn’t look too promising. But, then, and John and I discussed on the show, I think even the station volunteers know they’re hanging by a thin strand. This isn’t a case or an argument that would set major precedent for free radio, even if SFLR were victorious. Nevertheless, I give the whole SFLR crew credit for holding the line and steadfastly asserting their rights for so long.

Also according to the Mercury Register article, SFLR apparently has replaced their equipment but is waiting for their case to be over before returning to the air.

radioshow news headline: SENATE TELECOMM BILL STILL GOING NOWHERE

From the Aug. 4, 2006 edition of the mediageek radioshow:

The Senate Telecomm bill which would create a national cable franchise is no closer to a vote than it has been all Summer. One factor holding up the bill are Democrat threats of a hold or filibuster. Majority leader Bill Frist won’t let the bill come up for a vote unless the bill’s chief sponsor, Commerce Committee Chair Ted Stevens can rustle up the 60 votes necessary to force a vote.

But another factor has turned out to be members of Republican party who are up for re-election this November who are reluctant to sign on, fearing voter reprisals.

The key controversy over the bill is the fact that while it is a massive giveaway to the nation’s largest telephone companies, by easing their entry into the cable TV market, it contains no provisions to ensure the telcos don’t use their growing power to limit, filter or slow down access to multimedia content they don’t have a hand in.

While the big telcos have been spending millions this summer trying to give the appearance that a grassroots coalition of their customers is joining them in opposition to network neutrality, vulnerable senators, like Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum, know the truth that the real grassroots voting power supports guaranteed free speech on the internet.

Other Republican senators who reportedly have cold feet include Lincoln Chafee, R.I., Mike DeWine, Ohio, Ben Nelson, Neb., and Jim Talent, Mo.

As a result of Senate Republicans’ reticence to rally behind the telecomm bill, it remains in limbo until the Senate reconvenes after Labor Day. But there’s still no indication that the legislation is any more likely to see a vote before election day.

Read more »

From Today’s Radioshow: Net Neutrality Debate and Daily Show Segments

On today’s radioshow we listened to excerpts from a debate on Net Neutrality between two founders of the internet, Vint Cerf, in defense of net neutrality, and Dave Farber, speaking against it. The debate was sponsored by the Center for American Progress, and you can find an mp3 of the whole debate at the Public Knowledge Policy Blog.

We also listened to some excerpts from two Daily Show segments also on Net Neutrality, and you can watch them both at YouTube:

• Daily Show segment on Sen. Ted Stevens’ explaining the internet as a “series of tubes,” from July 12, 2006.
• Daily Show segment explaining net neutrality from July 19, 2006.

News Headlines from the April 21 Radioshow

These are the media news headlines as read on the April 21 mediageek radioshow: FCC Announces Comment Deadlines on AT&T-BellSouth Merger; Commissioner Adelstein Acknowledges FCC Payola Investigation; Unlicensed Radio Harassed in Quad Cities and Ypsilanti
Read more »

News Headlines from the Feb. 24 Radioshow: Net Neutrality Setback in the House; Senate Comm Committee Considers Cable

These are the news headlines as read on the Feb. 24 edition of the mediageek radioshow.

Net Neutrality Setback in the House Energy & Commerce Committee
The battle over the future of the internet is heating up on Capitol Hill. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is currently drafting telecommunications legislation that will address many internet-related issues, including the ability of the nation’s largest telcos, like Verizon and AT&T, to offer cable TV services over their broadband lines.

Left out of this draft are any safeguards for network neutrality, according to congressional and industry sources as reported in the National Journal. The Baby Bells have been fighting a fierce battle against having network neutrality written into law, because such rules would restrict their ability to discriminate against any other website that offers audio, video and other rich multimedia content on the Internet.

Executives from Verizon, AT&T and Bell South have all been quoted this year talking about wanting to charge not just their broadband customers for the bandwidth they use, but charge the companies or organizations that provide the music, video and other content that flows over those broadband lines.

Internet content companies like Google and Yahoo, along with public interest groups like Free press and consumers Union, accuse the telephone companies of attempting to double dip and make internet-provided video more expensive so that consumers will prefer cable TV services offered by the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

For their part the big telcos say that they are committed to network neutrality principles, and can be trusted not to block content without there being a law. However, they do want the right to create broadband tiers, where customers will pay more in order to receive more multimedia content from other companies and organizations via the public internet.

Critics say such tiers will result in most internet households not having access to a diversity of audio and video content, like independently internet radio and video, because it will be priced out of their reach. They argue that the internet we know now, where a single monthly price for broadband allows you access to everything on the web, will turn into an internet where only the stuff offered by Verizon or Comcast is part of the basic package, and you’ll have to spend a lot more even just to get downloads of this radioshow.

Part of the reason why the House committee may not address network neutrality is that the committee members themselves can’t find agreement on the issue. So, instead, the committee essentially plans to endorse a plan offered by Verizon that would streamline the Bell’s ability to offer cable TV services in cities without having to negotiate with local municipalities like traditional cable operators do.

Of course, the nation’s cable companies don’t like such a competitive advantage being handed to these new entrants, so the current draft bill would similarly deregulate a city’s dominant cable provider once the competitor reached a fifteen-percent market-share.

While cable TV providers of all stripes would still be required to pay franchise fees to municipalities under this plan, these fees would be fixed and non-negotiable. Community media and public interest advocates are critical of this deregulation because it could spell the end of community service and public access tv channels, which are largely obtained and funded through a municipality’s negotiations with cable companies.

The House Energy and Commerce committee is likely to take up its Internet legislation in March, so there is still the possibility that network neutrality could make its way back in. The media policy group Free Press has organized a website to help people contact their federal representatives on the issue of network neutrality. go to netfreedomnow.org

Senate Commerce Committee Considers Cable Deregulation
Back in the world of cable TV, on Feb. 15 the Senate Commerce Committee took up the issue of cable TV franchising, hearing testimony on the issue from the telephone and cable industries, in addition to representatives from the alliance for community media and public knowledge.

Unfortunately, key senators on that committee have come out in favor of national cable TV franchises that would take away negotiating power from local municipalities. And support for this deregulation stretches across the aisle. Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Ensign of Nevada and John McCain of Arizona joined Democrats Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and John Kerry of Massachussetts in signing a statement of principles in support of national franchises.

The Baby Bells, which want to offer cable over their broadband internet lines, claim that negotiating individual contracts with each city they want to offer TV services in is a slow process that will delay the entry of competition and raise prices for consumers.

The existing cable operators challenge these claims. In particular, Cablevision Chief Operating Officer Tom Rutledge told the commerce committee that AT&T and Verizon have not made good-faith efforts to obtain local franchises or they would have received more. Rutledge said the much smaller Cablevision received 100 franchises within the three years that Verizon obtained 50.

The current cable franchise law mandates a minimum 5% fee that cable operators pay back to local governments, but allows for municipalities to negotiate for more.

Anthony Biddle executive director of the Alliance for Community Media told Senators that those extra funds are often used to pay for Publicaccess, education and government channels, that would be threatened if the fee were capped at 5%, as proposed by many lawmakers.

Gene Kimmelman, Vice President of Consumers Union asked Senators to provide strong protections for consumers and communities, like offering service to all households within a municipality, and implementing requirements to ensure that public access and government channels are properly funded and public services like schools and libraries have adequate broadband internet access.

The Senate Commerce Committee is on a similar timetable as the House, with Chairman Ted Stephens expecting to bring a draft bill on cable franchising and internet issues—including net neutrality—sometime in March.