The future of the country is broadband, not broadcast TV, and we have fallen behind in providing nationwide access.

So believes the Federal Communications Commission, which on Monday stated its case in a 359-page, 10-year plan to Congress. “While broadband adoption has grown steadily, it is still far from universal,” the FCC said. “It lags considerably among certain demographic groups, including the poor, the elderly, some racial and ethnic groups and ethnic minorities, those who live in rural areas and those with disabilities.” The FCC plan anticipates a country where the internet is the main way to communicate electronically -- and consumers without high-speed access are missing a vital link to news, information and tools needed to be full citizens. It also anticipates that as other countries continue to ramp up connection speeds, America is going to start falling further behind without significant actions by Congress and regulators to provide more broadband bandwidth. The report sets a goal of vastly increasing the average speed of available internet connections within five years and providing 100 million homes download speeds of 100 megabytes a second within 10 years. It also calls for rolling out affordable internet access to the one-third of Americans who are currently blacked out. The report, which Congress requested, represents the biggest policy move yet of the FCC under Chairman Julius Genachowski. It outlines a series of recommendations to Congress, federal agencies and to the FCC itself. At a briefing Monday, FCC officials said the agency would move quickly to launch multiple proceedings to alter its rules to enable some of the changes. Many of the recommendations require legislation or separate regulatory action and some could be controversial. Genachowski in a statement called the plan “a 21st century roadmap to spur economic growth and investment, create jobs, educate our children, protect our citizens and engage in our democracy.” “It’s an action plan, and action is necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness, and harness the power of broadband to help address so many vital national issues,” he said in the statement. The report also said that the challenge is not only about technology. “Millions of Americans lack the skills necessary to use the internet.” Among the recommendations: -- Free up additional broadcast spectrum for internet services, some by getting TV stations to turn over unused spectrum and some by other means. -- Create a Digital Literacy Corps and a National Digital Literacy Program. -- Clarify rules on online privacy. -- Create a new tier of free or low-cost wireless broadband that would be supported by advertising. Consumers could still buy wifi and phone plans, but the free advertising supported tier would be for consumers who couldn’t afford the other plans. -- Alter rules for cable set top boxes to ensure consumers can buy boxes independently at competitive prices. -- Start using a universal service fund that was originally created to guarantee low income residents can get telephone service to help low income residents get internet service. The FCC is wet to formally approve the plan at its monthly meeting on Tuesday. Public interest groups, telecom companies and legislators praised the report, even as they all said it opens long battles ahead. “The commission has done a superb job in meeting the challenge set forth by the Congress one year ago that a national plan to achieve universal broadband access be developed,” said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virg., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s communications panel. “I look forward to working with FCC Chairman Genachowski to enact legislation which will carry forward the commission’s plan.” Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, called the plan “a significant first step in the right direction.” Some Republicans, on the other hand, expressed concerns that the FCC in pushing broadband could be stepping into territory best left up to private industry, while broadcasting groups expressed their concerns about the FCC’s plans suggestion that some of the additional spectrum needed for the internet come from stations’ allocation.

Cable systems that hope competition from satellite and phone company rivals could be eased by locking up rights for channels they own have been dashed. At least for now.

A divided three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Friday morning upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s that require cable companies to share with competitors channels they own or even partially own.

Most of the channels affected are regional sports channels, but some cable systems own several national channels, too. And they could soon own far more if Comcast’s deal for NBC Universal goes through. The rules were initially implemented more than a decade ago, and extended for five years in 2007. Cable systems challenged the extension, arguing that they violated the First Amendment and were outdated because cable systems have lost market share to satellite and phone-company competitors. On a 2-to-1 decision, the judges sided with the FCC. The ruling said that while cable systems indeed have lost market share, they still control a majority of the market for cable. But the judges warned that if cable systems continue to lose market share, the FCC may lose its justification for extending the rule again. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski praised the decision. “The commission’s program access rules have played a vital role in making diverse and attractive video programming available to cable and satellite TV viewers,” he said in a statement. “I’m pleased that the D.C. Circuit court has confirmed the commission’s authority to prevent vertically integrated cable companies from denying critical television programming to their competitors and consumers.” The decision drew praise from consumer advocates and disappointment from cable systems. Parul P. Desai, vice president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that represents consumer groups, said in a statement said the court correctly found that cable systems  “have sufficient market power to withhold programming from their competitors. “Exclusive contracts for must-have programming, combined with cable’s significant market power, would have a disastrous impact on competition and consumer welfare,” he said. On the other side, Comcast said in a statement: “We’re disappointed that the court has preserved the current unfairness that allows DirecTV to have exclusives for NFL Sunday Ticket and NASCAR Hot Pass while restricting the exclusives that cable operators may have, but it is welcome that the court -- majority and minority alike -- recognize that the marketplace of today is vastly more competitive than in 1992 and that rules and regulations must keep pace with marketplace changes.” Said a statement from Cablevision: “Like the must-carry and retransmission consent regime that allowed ABC to blackout the Oscars for 3 million New York households this week, the program access rules are based on an outdated and obsolete view of the competitive landscape. In today’s highly competitive video marketplace, these rules do nothing but tilt the playing field in favor of phone companies and broadcasters to the detriment of fair competition and consumers.”

     

Writers Guild of America West President John Wells warned senators on Thursday morning that the proposed Comast-NBC Universal deal would create a media “superpower” and give too much control to a few multinationals.

Without safeguards, he told the Senate Commerce Committee, Comcast would be in a position to limit consumers' ability to get TV shows over the internet for free, cut back on news, and raise cable prices.

The hearing is the fourth and last on the deal by Congressional committees. The deal needs approval from the Justice Department on antitrust issues and from the FCC on public-interest issues. Wells called on regulators to require a quarter of primetime programming on Comcast and NBC be devoted to independent programming and also to impose net neutrality guarantees. Wells’ comments were among several at the hearing that indicated the $30 billion merger could face some serious regulatory and antitrust opposition. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., flatly announced opposition to the deal, and there were signals from a top Justice Department official that the review could be intensive. Christine Varney, assistant attorney general for antitrust, made it clear that Justice has gone through changes since  the Bush era, and its review of any deal will be far more comprehensive. “I can assure you there is no rubber stamp at the Department of Justice,” she said. While generally declining comment on specifics in the Comcast deal, under questioning by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Varney said one area that would be examined closely is internet video impacts. Consumer groups, some Comcast competitors and Wells have suggested the deal would hurt budding cable competition from video on the web and potentially lead to internet video being made available only to cable subscribers. “We are very concerned about the role the internet can play as an active competitor to lower prices,” said Varney. “In any action where there is an aspect of the internet providing significant competition, we will look at that.” Wells said writers have “grave concerns” that the deal would further consolidate programming power in the entertainment industry. “In the last several years, we have seen the country go from dozens of media suppliers to a handful,” he said. “The reality is a handful of multinationals control what consumers watch.” Wells said the deal would create a "superpower" that could dominate TV.
"This new media power could in effect deny consumers the ability to select channels, through its marketing practices of bundling channels, channel positiong and tier placement," he said.
Cantwell said limits that NBC imposed on Olympics video from the web and from Canadian broadcasters increased her concerns about the deal. “I can't support this merger,” she said. Other senators expressed concerns that the combination would increase cable rates. On the other side, Comcast chairman-CEO Brian Roberts told the senators that the deal “would be good for consumers, innovation and competition” in the industry. Under vigorous questioning from Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Roberts said he would have “no problem” if the deal inspired similar acquisitions by rivals like Time Warner buying ABC and possibly Dish Network buying CBS. Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski said the FCC is just beginning its own “public interest” review of the deal and to ask for formal public comment before proceeding much farther. Reviews on the deal by the various government agencies are expected to take through late this year.  

Disney’s battle with Cablevision over retransmission fees has produced a new fight in Washington -- one that could threaten broadcasters’ hopes of getting big dollars from new deals.

Major cable and satellite companies -- with the exception of Comcast and Cox -- sent letters Tuesday to congressional leaders and a petition to the Federal Communications Commission, saying the Disney-Cablevision battle demonstrated the “harm” posed to consumers by such disputes.

Citing “increasingly contentious negotiations” over retransmission fees, the cable and satellite operators urged action be taken to reform consent negotiations.

Cablevision subscribers in three states missed part of the Oscars telecast on Sunday before a tentative deal was struck.

“The [ABC-Cablevision dispute] is just the latest example of how the retransmission consent regime is broken,” said the letter signed by Cablevision, Bright House Networks, Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications, DirecTV, Dish Networks, MediaCom, Sudden Link Communications, Insight Communications and the American Cable Association. “Consumers are caught in the cross-hairs.”

The Media Access Project, a public-interest law firm that works on FCC issues, also urged changes.

“The system is out of balance,” said MAP president-CEO Andrew Jay Schwartzman in a statement. “Increasingly, broadcasters are demanding that the public pay them for access to their TV channels, even though they receive free use of public airwaves. People are tired of paying ever more for the same thing. Viewers should not be used as pawns in contract negotiations.”

The target of the cable systems' ire is a 1992 law requiring cable providers negotiate for rights to retransmit the same TV signals that local viewers can often see for free by putting up an antenna. Originally, broadcasters offered the retransmission consent for free, but in an era of shrinking advertising revenue, they have moved to start charging for it.

Cable systems argue that the current law is out of balance -- giving too much power to broadcasters in negotiations -- or that the FCC hasn’t done enough to set up procedures for resolving disputes.

“As broadcasters now demand significant cash for carriage of their signals, consumers are held hostage as [cable systems] must choose between a rock and a hard place: Pay exorbitant carriage fees and raise consumer rates, or be forced by broadcasters to drop local signals,” says the petition to the FCC.

“The recurring threats of blackouts, high-stakes public ‘showdown’ negotiations and recent economic analyses have all confirmed what programming distributors have known for years: The retransmission consent regime is broken,” the petition says.

Broadcasters argue that the fees are fair compensation because cable systems are making money retransmitting their programming.

National Association of Broadcasters executive VP Dennis Wharton warned that without the payments, local broadcasting could be in trouble.

"The unintended consequences of pay TV providers attacking the free-market-based retransmission consent model could be the demise of local programming,” he said. “Modest retransmission consent revenues help local TV stations fund news operations, community service and life-saving weather information that viewers across America rely on every day.

"Vertically integrated cable operators routinely compensate each other for their own less-watched cable-owned networks, while raking in profit increases five times the amount of their programming costs," Wharton added. "To see billion-dollar pay TV companies asking for government intervention to protect their exorbitant profits is just plain wrong."

More to read: 

ABC, Cablevision Reach Agreement; Oscars Air in NY
WABC-Cablevision Battle Goes Nuclear: Signal Pulled
John Kerry on ABC-Cablevision Fight: 'Consumers Are Collateral Damage'
Cablevision Calls Bob Iger on Carpet
Howard Stern Weighs in on ABC-Cablevision's Day 4

Ron Howard is at it again. The odd bedfellows combination of celebs and Washington financial reform legislation continued Tuesday with a second tongue-in-cheek, Howard-directed video -- this time featuring reality TV star Montag. The latest FunnyorDie video, in support of MainStreetBrigade, follows one last week in which former “Saturday Night Live” performers who played presidents reunited to aid Americans for Financial Reform. In the video, Montag talks about the high cost of plastic surgery and having to pay for that with credit and the hidden rates and fees that could imply.   “A consumer agency will stop banks and credit card companies from being such sleezy jerks,” she says. “Call your senator and ask them to fight for consumer protection.” The video then places her in a hot tub with pictures of Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., urging people call them.    Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic from Heidi Montag

Is the "vast wasteland" now "a wasted vast land"?

Alluding to the famous warnings about the future by another Federal Communications Commission chairman in the 1960s, current FCC commissioner Michael J. Copps delivered a stinging critique of the media industry on Thursday.
Copps told an FCC workshop that the commission had “dropped the ball” for three decades in making sure that stations continue serving the public interest after they are sold.
He said “horrendous” policy decisions have created “a media free-fall” that makes it easier and easier for stations to ignore local issues and harder for their competitors who wanted to devote time to those issues to compete.
The workshop is part of an investigation the FCC is undertaking on regulatory changes that may be needed to keep the media functioning as a vital source of civic information.

“’Play the game or get voted off the island’” became the mantra of this dangerous game of Media Survival,” said Copps, suggesting the result was to create an incentive for greater profits at the expense of journalism.
He called watchdog journalism “an endangered species.”
“More often than not, infotainment subs for the news people really need,” he said.
And he called on the FCC to reinvigorate its commitment to seeing broadcasters meet their public-interest obligations.
Also at the workshop, Princeton University professor Paul Starr had a different warning. He said changes in media and technology are creating problems in the public discourse, especially at the local level.
Local officials' political accountability may be vanishing as financial woes hurt newspapers and other local news sites, he said.

He also said technology may be making Americans less informed, not more, because as consumers go to targeted websites instead of the front page of newspapers, “incidental learning” disappears.

It's a "Saturday Night Live" Presidential reunion.

A slew of "SNL" players who have impersonated U.S. presidents joined up for a Ron Howard-directed video to support Americans for Financial Reform. Jim Carrey also gets in the act.

In the Funny or Die video, former presidents come to the White House bedroom to meet up with President Obama (Fred Armisen) and First Lady Michelle Obama (Maya Rudolph): -- Will Ferrell as George Bush -- Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton -- Dan Aykroyd as Jimmy Carter -- Dana Carvey as George H. W. Bush -- Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford -- Jim Carrey as Ronald Reagan   The website also has a “Making of …” video. The video ends with a message urging viewers to call their senators to support legislation pushing financial reform.
"The banks have millions of dollars to get their message out," the message says. "But Your speech is free. Contact your senators about the CFPA. Nothing annoys them more than having to do their jobs." The video comes as Congress prepares to consider whether to create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Americans for Financial Reform is a coalition of more than 200 national, state and local consumer, labor, investor, civil rights, community, small business and senior citizen organizations, pushing Congress to act now on financial reform.

Dorothy’s slippers. Yes. Julia Child’s kitchen. Yes.

O.J. Simpson’s suit. No way.

That could be the shopping list at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History. The keeper of the "Wizard of Oz" slippers and the Julia Child’s TV kitchen has flatly rejected the suit O.J. Simpson wore the day he was acquitted of charges in the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman. After the criminal trial, Goldman's father successfully sued Simpson and won a civil award of $33.5 million in 1997. Since then, he has been trying to collect by seizing O.J. Simpson’s assets. The suit has been in the hands of Simpson’s former agent, Mike Gilbert. Amidst arguments about the rights to the suit, Gilbert suggested donating it to the museum, and both sides agreed to the plan. On Monday a judge ordered the donation. Except the Smithsonian doesn’t want the suit. “The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History will not be collecting O.J. Simpson's suit," the museum said in a statement Tuesday. "The decision was made by the museum's curators together with the director.” A museum spokeswoman declined to offer further explanation.