Center for Creative Voices in Media Blog

Senate Votes to Block FCC's Cross-Ownership Rule Change

The Senate by near unanimous voice vote passed a Resolution of Disapproval of the FCC's relaxation of media ownership limits. A similar resolution awaits House action. The President has threatened to veto it. Interesting, among the co-sponsors of the resolution are senators and presidential candidates Clinton and Obama. Said Obama about the Resolution: “We must ensure that we have an open media market that represents diverse voices throughout the country... The rules promoting the public interest and diversity in media ownership are too important for the FCC to accept an agenda supported by the Washington special interests I have fought against for more than one year." We agree. Link here.

Senator to ISPs: "Think twice" about 'Net neutrality... or else

From Ars Technica: Pledging to use "every ounce of my energy to protect network neutrality," Wyden had a message for ISPs who might be pondering new charges for various forms of access: "think twice." If ISPs start down that road, they might soon find that they lose key legal protections including "safe harbors" and tax freedom. Wyden delivered his ultimatum at a Computer & Communications Industry Association conference in DC, where he cast the entire network neutrality debate in terms of a legislative compromise. Years ago, Congress began protecting ISPs from the twin threats of regulation and taxation; in return, ISPs were expected to deliver an unimpeded connection to the Internet. A move away from a neutral 'Net would undermine the "very philosophical underpinnings of what we fought for for the last 15 years," according to Wyden. If that happens, he sees no reason for Congress to continue sheltering ISPs. Finally, politicians are using language Big Cable and Big Telco understand and respect. Those industries have enjoyed protection for their monopolies from Congress, and all that protection needs to be rethought if they try to use it as leverage to take over the Internet. Link: Senator to ISPs: "Think twice" about 'Net neutrality... or else.

Sprint's WiMax -- Will Google Transform Big Cable/Telco or Become Them?

Harold Feld of the Media Access Project has a terrific analysis of the potentially transforming announcement by Sprint and ClearWire of their wireless broadband joint venture with Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Google, and others. ...after seeing Google break my poor little heart in the 700 MHz auction after I was so utterly convinced they would bid to win, I am very definitely reserving judgment here. Because while I keep hoping that this is all part of Google acting to alter the wireless world by making it more open, I cannot overlook the possibility that this is the world of giant corporate incumbents altering Google to be less of a threat. Read all of it at: Wetmachine: Harold Feld's Tales of the Sausage Factory.

House Addresses Net Neutrality

Variety report on the Tuesday hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on a proposed bipartisan bill intended to ensure open access to the Web: "Hannah Montana" exec producer Steve Peterman, speaking on behalf of the Writers Guild of America West, described the Internet as "the new TV" and the best of the diminishing opportunities for independent artists to reach a large audience. Media consolidation over the last 15 years had reduced a once "rich marketplace of ideas" into a tightly controlled environment ruled by seven congloms that determine "nearly all of the information and content we see," Peterman said. "Because this small group now acts as producer, studio and network, there has been an inevitable stifling of creativity and diversity, and because they maintain a chokehold over distribution, there has been nowhere else for the creative community to go," he declared.Peterman said the ready availability of the Web as an exhibition platform is appealing to many writers weary of "notes from 30 executives with no sense of humor. Unlike the current studio system, the Internet makes it possible for content creators to retain both ownership and control of the quality of what they create. The Internet also provides the audience -- the American public -- with a virtually unlimited menu of news, information and entertainment content from which to choose. But all of these bold new possibilities rely on Net neutrality." Peterman said WGAW was therefore endorsing the proposed bill, called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which would essentially codify the Federal Communications Commission's principles of Internet openness. Link: Congress addresses net neutrality - Entertainment News, Technology News, Media - Variety.

Creative Voices Seek FCC Carve-Out for Indie Productions

In the FCC's proceeding on "Localism," Creative Voices and a broad coalition of public interest groups asked the FCC to promote creativity, diversity, originality, and just plain better TV by changing its rules to allow independent producers not affiliated with the broadcast networks -- like the people who made All in the Family, The Cosby Show, Murphy Brown, and The Rockford Files -- to again make TV for primetime. For more details and a copy of our filing, go to this link: Center for Creative Voices in Media: News. Read the Broadcasting and Cable article on our filing, here.

Hollywood taking sides in network neutrality debate

The LA Times has some good quotes in its story on Net Neutrality: "If the outcome is the studios will have preferred access for delivering content because of a deal they would get with the [Internet service providers], I think that would be a really bad thing for the industry," said Gilles BianRosa, chief executive of Vuze Inc., a Palo Alto-based company that uses a version of BitTorrent technology to let people watch and share video, music and games.

(Justine) Bateman, best known for her role in the 1980s as Mallory Keaton on "Family Ties," said other actors and producers should be more concerned."You need to have a distribution avenue that's free and open, and that's the Internet," Bateman said in an interview. "I don't think it occurred to anybody that would be threatened. But, boy, you could get 5,000 more witnesses if you start spreading that around in Hollywood." Link: Hollywood taking sides in network neutrality debate - Los Angeles Times.

MPAA, RIAA going steady with ISPs

Looks like our prediction in our recent HuffPo post  was spot-on that Big Media has made its deal with broadband ISPs to exempt its content from the ISPs' discrimination and degradation on the Internet in exchange for supporting the ISPs against net neutrality rules. Variety reports that at an Institute for Policy Innovation panel addressing online piracy, leaders of Hollywood, the recording industry and the wireless industry touted the beginnings of a long-term relationship built on a foundation of making the Internet a thriving market for legal content and a dead end for bootleggers. "We're all in this together," said MPAA chairman-chief exec Dan Glickman.

"We're moving toward a world where all our interests align," said RIAA chairman-CEO Mitch Bainwol. "The long-term relationship is much more complex and partner-based," Bainwol said, suggesting that congestion, while a serious issue for content generators and ISPs alike, is only one common interest. Could it possibly be that degrading and discriminating against video that competes with Big Media, Big Cable, and Big Telco could be another "common interest?" We'll predict again what we did in HuffPo: You'll see a very hot place freeze over before Comcast or any other ISP blocks Big Media's Hulu.com video distribution service, while at the same time they'll freely block BitTorrent and other competitors. Link: MPAA, RIAA going steady with ISPs - Entertainment News, Music News, Media - Variety. Read our HuffPo post for more detail and analysis, here.

Senate Panel To FCC: Take Your "Deregulation" and Shove It

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved a rarely used "Resolution of Disapproval" that would roll back the FCC's latest attempt to permit even more media consolidation and concentration. A similar resolution has been introduced in the House. But to become effective, the Resolution must be signed by the President, who has already promised to veto it. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said the resolution was meant to combat "galloping concentration" in the media. Link: FOXNews.com - Senate panel rejects new media ownership rule.

Writers, Actors Support Net Neutrality at Senate Hearing

In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday, Writers Guild of America West topper Patric Verrone and thesp Justine Bateman described the Internet as the only remaining open market for truly independent creators. Both emphasized the need for Net neutrality -- the notion that Internet and broadband service providers should be mandated to provide consumers with equal and unfettered access to all legal Web sites and online content. Link: Hollywood split on net neutrality - Entertainment News, H'w'd and D.C., Media - Variety. The Benton Foundation has an excellent page devoted to the hearing, with Verrone and Bateman's testimony, as well as the statements of FCC Chair Kevin Martin and other witnesses, here. Martin's comments on enforcing net neutrality and making more explicit the FCC's authority to take action against Comcast-style blocking of websites and applications went farther and were stronger than we'd ever heard before, and we welcome them.

Creative Voices' 1Q 2008 Update

Check out our latest newsletter. We report on our indecency case going to the Supreme Court, the fight against media consolidation, and our work on Internet Freedom and Net Neutrality. Link: Center for Creative Voices in Media: News.

Tim Robbins' Brilliant Keynote at NAB

At times hilarious and profane, at others serious and insightful, Tim Robbins' keynote speech to the NAB is a must listen, available here. As Variety reported: The fun started to get uncomfortable when Robbins referred to both the Reagan and Clinton administrations having eased limitations on media ownership -- all to the "benefit" of communities, which then no longer had to listen to diverse, complex opinions "or alternative rock." NAB has supported relaxing ownership rules.

Robbins peaked with what he called a three-pronged proposal that broadcasters should adopt in order to eliminate "confusing, complex issues" such as diversity of thought and opinion."First, erase all diversity," he said. "You only need two opinions. Second, stay focused on sex scandals. We don't want any kind of reporting outside the soundbite. I don't know about you, but show me a drunk starlet getting out of a car with no panties on, and I think the world is a better place. Third, more distraction. The economy sucks? Chaos in Iraq? It is a moral responsibility to distract."...

"In all seriousness, folks," Robbins said, dropping the good-natured satirical tone, "We're at an abyss as an industry and a country." He talked of pervasive cynicism in the country and added that "you, as broadcasters, have the power to turn the nation away from cynicism. Or you can hide behind the old adage, 'I'm just a businessman, just providing what the audience wants.' " Link: Tim Robbins delivers keynote at NAB - Entertainment News, TV News, Media - Variety.

"Fair Market Value" Bill makes it to CA Senate

A bill aimed at regulating self-dealing transactions among the majors cleared its first hurdle in the California state Senate with its passage Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The "Fair Market Value" bill, sponsored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) and supported by WGA, passed the CA Senate Judiciary Committee and is on its way to the full Senate. It would mandate that the majors pass the "fair market value" sniff test on all transactions between related entities of a conglom. See our discussion of this bill here. Link: WGA bill makes it to CA Senate - Entertainment News, Legal News, Media - Variety.

Will Anti-Net Neutrality Flack Mike McCurry Testify For Consumers Against Comcast?

From our latest on Huffington Post and SaveTheInternet.com:

Will Mike McCurry be called as a witness for consumers in their class action lawsuit against Comcast for blocking and degrading its broadband customers' access to legal Internet content downloaded via BitTorrent?

Here's why I ask: in response to my earlier Huffington and SaveTheInternet blog post, Does Big Media's One-Two Punch Knock Out the Internet?, "Hands Off the Internet," the mega-bucks anti-Net Neutrality lobbying group co-chaired by McCurry and funded by Verizon, AT&T, etc., writes:

Jonathan Rintels writes this week at SaveTheInternet that Net Neutrality is "a requirement that broadband Internet consumers be permitted to access the lawful content of their choice." We agree. But if that's the definition, then this Net Neutrality fight is over since consumers already have that right.

But Comcast was caught red-handed blocking and degrading ALL content using the BitTorrent service, including a file containing the very legal, public domain, un-pirated King James Bible, as well as legit un-pirated legal video from Big Media stalwarts Viacom, Fox, Warners, and others.

It's not very comforting that McCurry's "Hands Off the Internet" now claims that consumers already have the right to access the lawful content of their choice over the broadband Internet, so that additional government consumer protection is not needed, when Comcast's actions so obviously demonstrate the very opposite. What Comcast did to BitTorrent proves that without further government action to mandate Net Neutrality, consumers are at the mercy of the broadband ISPs and do not have the right to access the lawful content of their choice over the broadband Internet.

So, if McCurry is called to testify on behalf of consumers' rights in their class action against Comcast, would he be what lawyers call a "hostile witness?" Link: Jonathan Rintels: Will Anti-Net Neutrality Flack Mike McCurry Testify For Consumers Against Comcast? - Media on The Huffington Post.

Creative Voices Advocates Open Internet on Media Minutes

On this week's Media Minutes, Jonathan Rintels of the Center for Creative Voices in Media explains why his group supports an open Internet, and why the MPAA's claim that an open Internet promotes piracy is a smoke screen for its real agenda; to control the distribution of video content over the Internet, harming independent media makers and the general public. http://freepress.net/node/37739

Does Big Media's One-Two Punch Knock Out the Internet?

Last week saw Big Media deliver a powerful one-two combination of punches that may knock out today's wide open Internet. First, in a speech delivered by Motion Picture Association of America President Dan Glickman, the nation's media conglomerates vowed to fight increasingly vocal calls from policymakers and the public for "network neutrality" - a requirement that broadband Internet consumers be permitted to access the lawful content of their choice. That's hardly a revolutionary concept, unless you're a broadband gatekeeper like Comcast that makes its customers' choices for them by discriminating against some websites and favoring others. So starts our latest post on Huffington. Read the rest at: Jonathan Rintels: Does Big Media's One-Two Punch Knock Out the Internet? - Media on The Huffington Post.

MPAA All Wet on Net Neutrality

Kudos to the Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA) for calling out the MPAA on its colossally wrong-headed opposition to regulations ensuring Net Neutrality -- i.e., an open Internet. The MPAA has sold out the open Internet in exchange for a promise of more aggressive policing of piracy by the telcos and cablers who control broadband access. But Net Neutrality does not prevent the broadband gatekeepers from acting against piracy. Indeed, NN has nothing to do with piracy, but everything to do with squelching competition, whether legitimate or pirated, but mostly legitimate. Thus, Big Media has made an alliance with Big Cables and Telcos to claim that combating piracy is the Killer Ap that we won't have if reasonable Net Neutrality regs are enforced. This is simply false, as Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent shows, which blocked ALL of BitTorrent, not just the pirated material. The IFTA, which shares the MPAA's concerns about piracy (as does Creative Voices), rightly called out the MPAA's bogus argument in this terrific letter, which includes this spot-on morsel:

That openness [of the Internet] is threatened by the power of a small number of broadband providers to discriminate unilaterally against some categories of users or types of traffic or to accord preferential treatment to certain content providers over others, all under the ambiguous claim of "network management." While these providers may have some legitimate issues related to the technical management of their networks, there have already been cases of different treatment of users and it is clear that there must be transparency, equal treatment and an avenue of redress when the providers' private decisions trespass fair rights of others and the public interest. Thus, the issue is not whether government should regulate the Internet, but whether there will be effective oversight to prevent a handful of corporate giants from imposing their own version of private regulation to the public's detriment.

Link: Glickman-Net Neutrality FINAL 080314 JP.pdf.

Hulu Collusion?

Nikki Finke asks an extremely pertinent question on the day that Hulu.com goes "live" after months in beta. How is it that this Big Media "joint venture" doesn't run afoul of the antitrust laws? After all, could Big Media join together to buy a cable system like Comcast? Writes Nikki: ...what truly confuses me is why in hell this online video joint venture of News Corp and NBC Universal -- which also includes Warner Bros TV and Lionsgate (and two sports leagues) and wants Viacom and CBS to join as well -- doesn't violate any anti-trust laws. Here's yet another way that Big Media is becoming Behemoth Media by colluding with each other -- this time, on the Internet. On Wednesday, Hulu's launch will offer full-length episodes of more than 250 TV series and 100 movies. By 2009? Probably everything else showbiz. In the clutches of a dozen moguls. And won't web consumers rue that day. Nikki, thanks for reminding us there are still antitrust laws on the books. It's been so long since they've been enforced that we'd forgotten. Link: Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily.

FCC vs. The Public

Eric Alterman and George Zornick review the performance of the Bush Administration's FCC, and we couldn't agree more with their conclusions: Anyone interested in free airwaves that operate in the public interest has their work cut out for them in reversing these damaging policies. Ownership rules need to be revisited, as do obscenity regulations, to bring rationality to the system. And the FCC needs to take a more active oversight role, especially when it comes to telecommunications companies. But the first step to addressing media consolidation and deregulation is a robust public discussion. None of this nonsense would likely survive the light of day were it only in the media's interest to cover it. Link: FCC vs. The Public.

FCC Okays Nudity On TV If It’s Alyson Hannigan

From The Onion. Hilarious.

FCC Okays Nudity On TV If It's Alyson Hannigan

FCC Crusade Forces Top TV Creators, Programming to Cable

Cable net TNT has just announced an ambitious plan to produce a full primetime slate of original programming. Confirming what we said to TV Week, post below, according to the story in Variety: One key reason Turner is forging ahead now, (Turner Entertainment Networks President Steve) Koonin said, is that "the talent is coming to us." Top showrunners, he said, are becoming increasingly frustrated by the content constraints at the broadcast nets, which are getting pummeled with increasingly bigger fines from the FCC in response to vocal complaints from parents groups. By contrast, Koonin said, the Turner networks "are pushing the boundaries of content and building a marketing platform for these series to be successful." How does it serve the public interest for the FCC to push the best programming from the best program creators over to cable, where the public has to pay to see it? Link: TNT primes primetime originals push - Entertainment News, Front Page, Media - Variety.

FCC Has Chilling Effect on Shows

Creative Voices discusses the chilling effect of the FCC's latest fines for indecency, and the likelihood that the FCC's arbitrary indecency enforcement will exacerbate the loss of broadcast TV viewers to more interesting and challenging programming on cable. Link: FCC Has Chilling Effect on Shows - TVWeek - News.

Writers Bill Seeks Fair Market Value From Congloms

The WGA, SAG, and Teamsters are sponsoring a bill in the CA legislature that could boost their share of revenues when programs are licensed to be shown on affiliated cable networks or stations. Reports the LA Times: At issue is the contention that Hollywood's six major studios charge their co-owned affiliates, including cable networks, artificially low prices to rerun popular shows. Such discounting means that writers, actors, directors and other creative workers get less money in the form of residual payments that are calculated as a percentage of the license price, the Writers Guild contends. Studios have been hit with lawsuits involving the sale of reruns for a number of popular television shows, including "Home Improvement," "NYPD Blue," "The X-Files" and "Will and Grace." Patric M. Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West, said the proposed legislation would bring "reliable accounting" and fair compensation for entertainment industry workers. The two-paragraph bill would require that studios sell their affiliates the rights to films, TV series and radio shows only at the "fair market value" they would fetch in a competitive market. Could it be that the reviled oxymoron "Studio Accounting" that has cost creatives so much in lost revenue on reruns may finally be put out to pasture? Link: Writers bill aims at cable revenue - Los Angeles Times.

Creative Voices on the FCC's NYPD Blue Ruling

John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable interviewed Creative Voices' Jonathan Rintels about the impact of the FCC's recent decision that a scene of NYPD Blue aired five years ago was "indecent." A sampling:

What would be the impact on the public and content creators if the FCC's fine was allowed to stand?

We always talk about the gray area and the line between indecency and what's allowable on television. What this decision did was to make this gray area exponentially larger. This scene that they are fining on NYPD Blue was obviously looked at by network standards and practices, who are experts in that area and do their jobs very well. It was allowed through by the lawyers. And yet the FCC decision comes back as though it is pornography. The rhetoric the FCC uses indicates this scene, which was allowed by ABC executives, is far over the line. They used language like “graphic,” “repeated pandering,” “titillating” and “shocking.” Who knows where the line is now? It is all gray. How is a network supposed to respond to that?

Read the entire interview at Rebutting the FCC's Ruling - Broadcasting & Cable.

Net Neutrality Is a Civil Rights Issue

Mark Lloyd and Joseph Torres persuasively argue that Internet Freedom aka Net Neutrality, is a civil rights issue. For communities of color, the Internet offers a critical opportunity to build a more equitable media system. It provides all Americans with the potential to speak for themselves without having to convince large media conglomerates that their voices are worthy of being heard. Our Internet freedom is protected by a fundamental principle called “Network Neutrality,” which allows the public to access any Web site or any Web application of their choice without discrimination. Net Neutrality has been the guiding principle of the Internet since its inception — but now it’s in danger. Big phone and cable companies want to decide for you which Web sites and services go fast or slow. While the big corporate sites, especially the ones owned by these companies, get a spot in the fast lane on the information superhighway, everyone else — small businesses, independent publications, community groups — will be stuck on the slow road to irrelevance. Along with independent media makers. Link: Net Neutrality Is a Civil Rights Issue - CommonDreams.org.

On Indecency, Back to the Future -- and the 2nd Circuit

ABC wasted no time in appealing the FCC's bizarre foaming-at-the-mouth NYPD Blue indecency fine to the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where the networks (and Creative Voices) won a crucial decision last June overturning other similarly arbitrary FCC indecency decisions. ABC contends that the FCC order is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the commission’s own standards and past decisions and in violation of the indecency statute and the First Amendment. In its order, issued Tuesday, the commission assessed a total of $1,237,500 in fines against 45 stations that carried the program, including two ABC-owned stations (WLS Chicago and KTRK Houston) and 43 other ABC affiliates. While strongly opposed to the fines, ABC today paid them in their entirety in order the make the FCC decision appealable. Let's hope that the Court acts with the same wisdom it displayed in overturning the FCC last year. Link: ABC Pays NYPD Blue Fine, Appeals Decision in Federal Court - Broadcasting & Cable.

FCC Calls NYPD Blue Scene "graphic, repeated, pandering, titillating, and shocking", Rejects Appeals

The FCC quickly rejected all appeals of their fines against ABC affiliates for airing, five years ago (!), an episode of NYPD Blue in which a woman's rear end is shown. Recall that this show had been on for a decade, that no one in America could possibly not know that the show was intended for adults and not children, that the show was properly rated as not for children, and that the "offending" scene aired just moments after a parental advisory. "In context and on balance," the FCC concluded that "the graphic, repeated, pandering, titillating, and shocking nature of the scene’s visual depiction of a woman’s naked buttocks warrant a finding that it is patently offensive under contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, notwithstanding any artistic or social merit and the presence of a parental advisory and rating. Therefore, it is actionably indecent. Link: FCC Says NYPD Blue Fines Will Stick - Broadcasting & Cable. Judge for yourself how "graphic, repeated, pandering, titillating, and shocking" this scene is here.

Internet Bill a Blow to the Gatekeepers

Kudos to Reps. Ed Markey and Chip Pickering who launched the latest bipartisan salvo in the struggle to keep the Internet free of gatekeepers with the introduction of the House €œInternet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008€ (HR 5353). The bill protects Net Neutrality under the Communications Act and calls for a nationwide conversation to set policy about the future of the Internet. Markey and Pickering's bill calls on the agency to convene at least eight broadband summits to collect public input on a variety of policies €œthat will promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States. The new bill requires the FCC to actively protect the free-flowing Internet from gatekeepers, enforcing protections that €œguard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet. All the stuff we've been advocating on our reports on The Case for Universal Broadband in America: Now and our filings on Net Neutrality! Link: Save the Internet Blog - Internet Bill a Blow to the Gatekeepers.

$2 Billion Hit to LA Economy, Courtesy of Trustees of Public Airwaves

The writers strike that began Nov. 5 wrung $2 billion from the local economy, as much as four times more than the 1988 strike that lasted six weeks longer. Most of the pain, experts say, was felt by independent contractors, small-business owners and others that have courted TV production crews as favored customers. The Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. estimates that while $733 million in production spending has been lost, another $1.3 billion came from the pockets of the caterers, florists, valets, hotel operators, restaurant workers, costume-house employees and others.

While it takes two parties to make a strike, there is no doubt that the conglomerates' collusion on demanding draconian rollbacks made reasonable negotiations with the WGA over new media issues impossible until the industry was on the brink, and the CEOs personally intervened to clean up the mess their underlings had made on their orders. Yet, we the public allow these congloms to exclusively control -- for free -- broadcast spectrum worth hundreds of billions of dollars, based on the ongoing FCC auction, on the condition that they operate it in the public interest. After this $2 billion hit to the public economy, which was surely not in the public interest, perhaps it's time we revisited this bargain? Perhaps it's time we took a more expansive view of operating in the public interest? Link: Strike takes $2 billion toll.

Another "Mission Accomplished" -- Bush Says We All Have Broadband

It's "Mission Accomplished" all over again. In 2004, President Bush pledged that all Americans should have affordable access to high-speed Internet service by 2007. A report to be released Thursday by the administration says it has succeeded — mostly. "Networked Nation: Broadband in America" concludes that "a reasonable assessment of the available data indicates" that the objective of affordable access to broadband for all has been realized "to a very great degree." Richard Russell, deputy director for technology in the executive office of the president, also answered the question in the affirmative, but with a caveat. "The answer is by most metrics yes," he said. "However, there's still a lot more that needs to be done." Gee, if we all have affordable broadband, then how come there's so much more work to be done? The reason is that the administration "accomplishes" its goal by counting as "affordable broadband" slow, unreliable and unaffordable "fraudband" like satellite. Satellite "broadband" already existed in 2004 when Bush set his goal, and it accomplishes none of the objectives like economic development, job creation, telemedicine, long distance learning, etc. that Bush cited as the reasons we needed affordable broadband. To get the real story, check out our report, THE CASE FOR UNIVERSAL BROADBAND IN AMERICA: NOW! here. And read why we called the costs of the administration's complete failure to achieve this goal of universal broadband by 2007 "staggering." Link: The Associated Press: Study: US Broadband Goal Nearly Reached. Read the Bush broadband report: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2008/NetworkedNationBroadbandinAmerica2007.pdf

Tipping Point? Showtime, Brightcove to Take Emmy Awards Screening Online

Have we reached a tipping point? Where media congloms say TV and video over Internet is now Ready For Prime Time? Here's news that Showtime will dispense with the boatloads of DVD screeners it usually sends out to Emmy-Award voters in favor of streamed episodes online. The network is pairing with Internet-TV company Brightcove to give members of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences access to 82 original episodes of series including Weeds and Dexter online, rather than sending out the some 20 DVDs it has in the past. Clearly, Viacom/Showtime believes that at least for the Emmy voters, the quality and availability of online video streaming via broadband has evolved to the point where using it won't hurt their (good) chances to win a number of bottom-line boosting awards. Link: Showtime, Brightcove to Take Emmy Awards Screening Online - Broadcasting & Cable.

Decreeing Buttocks are "Sexual Organ," FCC Fines NYPD Blue

Why, it's just "common sense," per the FCC, that buttocks are a sexual organ. Therefore, it fined ABC stations in the Central and Mountain time zones over a million dollars for airing -- nearly five full years ago -- an episode of NYPD Blue before 10 p.m. that indeed -- brace yourself -- briefly showed a woman's rear end. The offending moment came right at the beginning of the show, just moments after ABC's disclaimer that "this police drama contains adult language and partial nudity." Here's more from the WSJ:

After a brief lull, the Federal Communications Commission recommenced its battle against provocative television shows late Friday, proposing a $1.43 million fine against ABC and its affiliates for a February 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue."
The agency proposed the highest fine possible for the broadcast, which briefly showed the side and back of a naked woman getting into a shower. "Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law and common sense," the FCC said in its complaint. Some 52 ABC stations in the Central Standard Time and Mountain Standard Time zones were assessed a $27,500 fine for broadcasting the show. ABC's East and West Coast affiliates were not charged fines because they aired the broadcast at 10 p.m., which falls outside the 6 a.m to 10 p.m. period in which the FCC can fine stations for broadcasting nudity, overly suggestive scenes and obscene words. Although almost five years in the making, the FCC fine is notable for its size and because it could signal the beginning of a new round of indecency fines that may soon emanate from the agency. Link: FCC Seeks $1.43 Million Fine Over 'NYPD Blue' Episode - WSJ.com. The FCC's decision is here.

TV Station Owners, Obligated to Act in Public Interest, Harm Public by Refusal to Negotiate w/WGA

The TV networks are owners of valuable television station licenses in LA and NYC which we, the people, gave them for free in exchange for their promise to act in the public interest and serve their communities. Here is what their refusal to negotiate with WGA is costing those communities and the nation: Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., estimates that the strike to date has cost Los Angeles County about $1.5 billion in wages and related economic activity -- not including the lost studio spending on production. The really staggering figure comes when you take the $3 billion estimate for lost film and TV production spending and consider the multiplier effect, or the lost spending stemming from expenditures for physical production (lumber, paint, craft services, supplies, town cars, etc.) plus the lost spending among actors, writers, directors, crews et al. who didn't have as much money to drop on meals in restaurants, clothing and that new Prius they might've been eyeing before the strike. Because showbiz workers are generally highly paid (and unionized), the U.S. Dept. of Commerce applies a high multiplier of 2.8 in assessing the ripple effect of the showbiz sector, which means that $3 billion in lost coin will really feel like a loss of $8.4 billion in Los Angeles, New York, Vancouver and other production hubs should the strike persist into April. Are the TV networks and station owners acting in the public interest? Link: Industry hopes costly strike ends - Entertainment News, Front Page, Media - Variety.

WGA Condemns Media Consolidation's Role in Strike on Capitol Hill

The WGA East staged a terrific and hilarious "debate" on Capitol Hill yesterday: the writers of the Daily Show took the side of the WGA while the writers of the Colbert Report portrayed the networks and studios of the AMPTP. WashPo has a good story and video here. "This strike is obviously difficult, because we're fighting just a very small number of very powerful media companies," Tim Carvell of "The Daily Show" said. "It's almost enough to make you wish there were an organization that could -- I don't know, for want of a better word, 'legislate' restrictions on those companies and their ability to monopolize an industry." All eyes turned to the House members in the room. Could they finally actually turn back the rampant consolidation of media that stifles creativity and independent voices? Link: When Writers Can't Write, They Pretend - washingtonpost.com.

Broadcasting & Cable's story recounts this funny bit: "Here's the ending we'd like to pitch to the writers’ strike," Daily Show writer Jason Ross wrapping up the debate from the WGA said. "We sit down, we work out a deal that pays writers fairly for Internet and all uses. Everyone goes back to work, the Oscars are saved, millions of dollars in financial damage repaired and a new era dawns between producer and creator."

"I like that, I like that, I have a couple of notes," the AMPTP side shot back.”You guys need to be more likeable. Maybe give you guys a bird on your shoulder, or a disabled friend, but not too disabled." More juicy bits here.

Conservative Legend James J. Kilpatrick Opposing TV Censorship

The legendary conservative James J. Kilpatrick writes that the Supreme Court should not, and likely won't, consider the Bush Administration's appeal of its loss in the Second Circuit overturning the FCC's censorship of fleeting utterances. Writes Kilpatrick: After all, in the sense of "an act of copulation," the f-word has been around since the early 1600s. It is not always used in a sexual sense. The Oxford English Dictionary says the f-word is frequently used "in an imperative or optative form to express anger or irritation." As for the s-word, it too has a long pedigree. It is almost as old as the f-word. It has spawned 34 derivative nouns, seven derivative verbs and a single derivative adverb. Both words are known to every boy above the age of 5 and every girl above the age of 7. Link: WHAT TO DO ABOUT DIRTY WORDS? - Yahoo! News.

New Media Web Producer Signs WGA Deal; Old Media Congloms Instead Hand Out Pink Slips

Stark illustration of the New/Old Media divide today in the latest news from the WGA strike. New Media producer Media Rights Capital, backed by ATT and Wall Street, signed a WGA agreement that covers original material produced for the Internet. It's the same deal that the Old Media AMPTP walked away from in early December. So, clearly, this WGA deal can't really break the bank, as the AMPTP claims. WGA West president Patric Verrone said the MRC deal began as an effort to cover MacFarlane and his "Family Guy" writers on 50 webisodes produced for Google. Verrone said the pact covers nearly three dozen projects -- features, TV series and Internet content including projects with Larry David and Gordon Ramsay -- and that other deals are in the works. "The general terms are the same as the earlier independent agreements we've signed," Verrone said. "But unlike other agreements, Original Internet content will now be written by WGA members with full MBA coverage -- something the conglomerates told us repeatedly they couldn't afford to do." Meanwhile, those Old Media congloms who can't afford the same deal that start-up New Media can just fired many producers with overall deals under their force majeure provisions. Link: WGA pacts with Spyglass, MRC - Entertainment News, Labor Issues, Media - Variety.

The People Vs. Comcast

Seems Forbes has been reading our stuff. Here's a bit of what they write about Comcast, which is inching ever closer to the inflection point where consumers can bypass it to download video directly from the Net: (Brian) Roberts tightly restricts what his subscribers can and cannot do. Like other cable chiefs, Roberts insists his customers buy TV channels in bulk, not individually. He led a behind-the-scenes battle to prevent cable subscribers from getting their hands on souped-up set-top boxes designed by other companies. And Comcast recently began interfering with customers' use of Internet peer-to-peer programs. In each case regulators, competitors and customers screamed in protest... The business of getting video to American homes remains a cozy oligopoly, with power firmly in the hands of the network owners. Consumers choose among nearly identical plans from one cable outfit, two satellite systems and, in a few markets, the phone company.

But rebellion is afoot. With stunning speed, the Internet is emerging as an alternative for the mass distribution of television and movies. The Net promises to upend the cable industry, stripping power from Roberts and handing it to his customers. Link: The People Vs. Comcast - Forbes.com.

Clinton's Telecom Plans May Destroy Internet

Matt Stoller examines Hillary Clinton's campaign plank on the Internet and criticizes its lack of Net Neutrality provisions and its embrace of other telecom lobbyist-proposals.  Concludes Stoller: Clinton's media and internet proposals may allow the destruction of the internet. Link: Matt Stoller: Hillary Clinton's Lobbyist Driven Telecom Plans - Politics on The Huffington Post.

FCC to Investigate Comcast Violations of Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission will investigate complaints that Comcast Corp. actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday at CES. "Sure, we're going to investigate and make sure that no consumer is going to be blocked," Martin said. Last year, The AP found that Comcast hindered file sharing by subscribers who used BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing program. After first denying everything, Comcast reversed itself and admitted that it was "delaying" some of the traffic between computers that share files. If ISPs hinder or control that traffic, it makes them important gatekeepers of Internet content. The FCC's response will be an important test of its willingness to enforce "Net Neutrality," the principle that Internet traffic be treated equally by carriers. Link: FCC to investigate data discrimination by Comcast.

House Launches FCC Investigation; Warns Against Destroying Documents

House Energy and Commerce leaders from both parties, headed by fearsome Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Joe Barton (R-TX) sent FCC Chair Kevin J. Martin a letter Tuesday asking for his full cooperation in their effort to determine whether the agency's business was being conducted in a "fair, open and efficient" manner. The committee plans to ask for lots of documents, and its investigators will interview FCC employees and witnesses, as well as hold hearings. But to put a point on it, the congressman asked Martin to immediately inform all FCC employees of their right to communicate with the committee and the FCC's inability to "deny or interfere" with those rights. Martin's trip to the woodshed should be ver-ry interesting. To Martin, running for office from North Carolina must be looking better and better. Link: House Launches FCC Investigation; Warns Against Destroying Documents - Broadcasting & Cable.

Economists Say Movie Violence Might Reduce Real Violence

Fascinating article in the NY Times about a new study that links movie violence to the real thing with real numbers and shows that movie violence, at least in the short term, actually reduces real violence. And, if you think about it, it kinda makes sense. “You’re taking a lot of violent people off the streets and putting them inside movie theaters,” said the lead author of the study, Gordon Dahl, an economist at the University of California, San Diego. “In the short run, if you take away violent movies, you’re going to increase violent crime.”

Professor Dahl and the paper’s other author, Stefano DellaVigna, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, attach precise numbers to their argument: Over the last decade, they say, the showing of violent films in the United States has decreased assaults by an average of about 1,000 a weekend, or 52,000 a year. Crime is not merely delayed until after the credits run, they say. On the Monday and Tuesday after packed weekend showings of violent films, no spike in violent crime emerges to compensate for the peaceful hours at the movies. Even a few weeks later, there is no evidence of a compensating resurgence, they say. Link: Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing - New York Times. As we've said throughout this ongoing debate over regulating violence on television, beware of the unintended consequences. Could one of those unintended consequences be more real violence, not less?