From recent headlines:
Now that the FCC hearing in Standford is over, Comcast had dumped the idea of a consumer “bill of rights” for consumers. Instead, apparently picking up on Commissioner McDowell's confusion over ICANN and how it works, Comcast has announced it is joing the Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA). While purportedly eager to include us regular folks in the dialog, consumer interests will not be represented in the initial discussions.

Comcast also is looking at bandiwdth caps, but that's in addition to “managing” p2p, not instead of managing p2p.

Meanwhile, Earthlink is apparently walking away from Wireless Philly, and may simply shut the system off unless the city buys it out.

And folks ask me why I don't “trust the market” when I am skeptical that big companies will stick by their commitments....

Stay tuned . . . .

Time for a shameless plug for my employer, the Media Access Project (MAP).

As long-time readers know, one of my frequent complaints is why don't folks whose lives depend on the rules made in DC bestir themselves and get active on the policy front. All it takes is a web browser and a docket number, after all. Why don't we see more Silicon Valley folks, VCs, and others show up at FCC proceedings.

Answer, they live as much in their own isolated bubbles as the DC folks do. If you are out in Silicon Valley, odds are good you rarely think of DC as having any relevance to your life and there is not going to be anyone or anything around you to tell you otherwise.

Well rejoice, lucky Silicon Valley people (and whoever else wants to make the trip out)! Media Access Project is sponsoring a series of policy forums (fora?) in Silicon Valley, wherein we will bring the D.C. policy world to you. And, lest you think this is some sort of socialist cult-like retreat wherein we will brainwash you with our public interest ways, we are working with big corporate partners like AT&T and eBay to assemble panels that present a wide variety of views. The primary purpose here is to get folks actually thinking about policy and why it is important for everyone to participate in the process. Think of it as a kind of “Rock the Vote” for Silicon Valley.

In any event, details below.

Stay tuned . . . . [Read More!]

For a business supposedly on the edge of extinction, newspapers attract an odd assortment of newcomers eager to get in on the game. Real Estate billionaire Sam Zell bought Tribune last year, marking fresh blood coming into the newspaper and broadcasting biz. Now, as Zell sells off some chunks of Tribune to to pay down debt, it would appear another new player is poised to enter the game.

According to this story, NYC based Cablevision has beat out Rupert Murdoch for the Daily News. Unlike the Murdoch deal, this would not implicate any FCC rules and should not raise too many hackles on the antitrust side. Arguably it has an impact on the local advertising market, but hardly enough to make a difference. Besides, I'm not sure if there is any evidence that the newspaper advertising market and the cable advertising market are related.

What is more interesting is “why does Cablevision want Newsday at all? And should I care?” Cablevision has in the past tried to break out of its main business as a cable operator and dabbler in cable programming and owner of various sports venues and franchises. At various points, it has tried to launch a satellite service and was a bidder in the last two major FCC spectrum auctions (coming away empty handed both times). Is this a toe in the water to go into the newspaper business or a more limited foray?

It is interesting to note that a few years ago, Cablevision was sued by the Jets over an alleged effort to block the Jets from building a sports stadium that would compete with those owned by Cablevision. Among the charges, the Jets claimed that Cablevision routinely gave its own front group free advertising time on its cable systems to drum up support against the Jets' stadium effort, while refusing to sell advertising time to the Jets for pro-stadium advertising. Owning Newsday will certainly give Cablevision a bit more political clout in its backyard should it find itself wanting to lobby local government again. While I don't think that's the primary reason for Cablevision buying Newsday, it does make for an attractive bonus from Cablevision's perspective.

Unfortunately, I think only DOJ or the FTC will examine the acquisition. It doesn't trigger either FCC rules or local franchise review. But this sort of impact on the diversity of news sources and the ability to leverage ownership of different media assets for political gain falls outside antitrust review — even in an administration that cares about antitrust. So for better or for worse, barring some new bidder emerging, I expect the deal to sail through easily.

Stay tuned . . . .

SO it turns out in 2003, the FCC amended the rules — but only with regard to higher power services governed by Subpart F. These higher power services were explicitly made secondary to any new entrants following the digital transition. (See 47 CFR 74.602(h)(3)). But the lower power wireless microphones governed by Part H (47 CFR 74.800 et seq) were not so designated.

I suppose an argument can (and will) be made that the FCC's 2003 BAS Order designated all BAS services as secondary to new entrants in Channels 52-69. But it should be reflected in the rules, and failure to modify 47 CFR 74.802 creates legal headaches at the very least. And, even if the argument is accepted, it doesn't solve the problem of all the legacy equipment in the hands of tens of thousands of users who will potentially be screwing up the new licensed wireless systems.

Stay tuned . . . .

No sooner did the FCC clarify that they would lift anonymity after they collected the money when Martin held a press conference and the FCC released the results. Here are the headlines:

1) Verizon won C Block and a boatload of licenses;

2) AT&T took a boatload of licenses;

3) Google didn't win anything (stupid oak leaves!).

I will have more details as I can track them down, and more analysis later. I also metaphorically owe Commissioner McDowell a dollar, for his prediction that the new entrants wouldn't bite on the big C.

Stay tuned . . .

The Onion explains the FCC's indecency rules.


FCC Okays Nudity On TV If It�s Alyson Hannigan

It should be noted, of course, that the inquiry is very fact specific. For example, a sex scene between Alyson Hannigan (“Willow”) and Amber Benson (“Tara”) would have strong artistic merit — especially if it included Sarah Michelle Gellar (“Buffy”). By contrast, if it took place during Seventh Season and featured Hannigan and Iyari Limon (“Kennedy”), it would merit a significant fine because Kennedy was a really stupid character and the entire relationship between Willow and Kennedy made absolutely no sense. In fact, even without the indecency, the FCC should have fined UPN for pretty much the entire second half of the seventh season.

By contrast, J. Michael Strazynsky should be fined for not making it profoundly unambiguous whether or not Susan Ivanova (Claudia Christian) and Talia Winters (Andrea Thompson) got it on in Divided Loyalties.

Such artistic programming can not only help avoid indecency fines, but it can be a serious assist next time you need a merger waiver. nudge nudge wink wink.

Finally, if any of the South Park characters appear nude, not only should the FCC fine every cable system in the country, but millions are likely to go blind.

Stay tuned . . . .

Alright Net Neutrality fans, policy wonks, and children of all ages. Bring your quatloos and tune your internet browsers to Von TV on March 11 at 2 p.m. to see THE ULTIMATE STEEL CAGE DEATHMATCH TAG-TEAM POLICY SMACKDOWN ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY!!!!

Yes! For the edification, enlightenment, and entertainment of the policy world, I, yr hmbl obdn't blogger, with Comcast Complaint Co-Counsel Marvin Ammori of Free Press, will square off against Progress and Freedom Foundation President Ken “the Assassin” Ferree and Phoenix Center President Lawrence “Terminator” Spiwak on the burning issue of network neutrality. As House Subcommittee Chariman Ed Markey (D-MA) once said: “This is no country for old broadband.” And I, personally, can assure you, There Will Be Blood. (If by “blood” we mean some “civil but very intense, passionate debate”).

“Not since the last Latke v. Hamentashen Debate has so much intellectual fire power, passion, and eloquence been mustered in one place on a vital issue of public policy.” — Random Policy Person

“Great background while multitasking.” — Overworked FCC staffer.

“A fantastic series of debates for a fantastic series of tubes.” --Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

So don't you dare miss the action! Tuesday, March 11, 2 p.m., live on VonTV and absolutely free. I shall float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, as I and my co-counsel Ammori, make mincemeat out of Spiwak and Ferree!

Stay tuned . . . .

Unsurprisingly, Clinton has sought to portray Obama as mostly oratory style rather than substance. Whereas Obama may give uplifting speeches, she tells crowds, she is the one with the command of the facts and the true knowledge of policy. Clinton backs this up by giving well researched specifics and detailed policy recommendations in her stump speeches and in her debate appearances.

Also unsurprisingly, the herd beasts of punditryland in their never ending quest for simplistic themes that nicely boil down to “X v. Y” arguments have gobbled this up with a spoon. We hear constantly either about how Obama will need to show he has the same command of the facts, or how voters are more in the mood for change than for experience, and on and on and on.

I will humbly suggest, however, that what Obama has done is to match his message to the medium. He has put the details on his website for folks interested in specific issues. But when speaking in the context of a mass medium (huge rally, television appearance), he makes his broader campaign appeal.

Other candidates have done this in the past. But I believe we have now hit a sufficient critical mass on the wider availability and greater use of the Internet as a tool to become an effective campaign strategy. This relates back to my earlier observations on the interplay between the internet and the traditional mass media. I would love to see some actual empirical research on the subject. But my speculations based on what I know now below. . . [Read More!]

Although as Writers Guild of America reminded its members, the strike is still on until the votes are counted, WGA has suspended picketing and it looks like they have a firm deal. The deal links writer compensation to advertising and other revenue derived from streaming media, an elegant solution to the problem of monetizing a product so new no one knows how it will make money and is extremely likely to be given away (you know, like broadcasting).

I don't have much to add here by way of analysis, but I wanted to give a huge shout out to the writers and the guilds and the actors that supported them for holding out and getting a fair deal. If we are indeed a country on the verge of change (as I keep hearing), I can hope that one change will be to reverse the sad downward slide of organized labor. Unions have been one of the most positive forces in our country for economic progressivism. Perhaps a high profile win or two will remind people why it pays to join and why they should look for the union label . . . .

Stay tuned . . . .
(Former member National Treasury Employees Union)

This article in the LA Times on the impact of telco price deregulation in California is a good illustration of the complex nature of the economics of competition and deregulation, and why it's so friggin' important for regulators and the public to understand this stuff. In 2006, the California PUC decided that voice service faced sufficient competition to phase out price regulation. In theory, competition would lead to lower costs and increased services and would remove the invariably stultifying impacts of regulation.

The result has been an increase in the availability of services and an overall decrease in the cost of service, but not in the way that ordinary folks understand or that regulators professed to expect from deregulation. Most customers have, in fact, increased the amount they pay for telecommunications services overall. But because they buy larger bundles of services that profess to discount the price of each element in the bundle, the average cost per service is lower although the amount of money paid has gone up. That might seem a good value trade if it were driven strictly by consumer choice. But consumer choice is driven by the decision of telcos to increase the cost of stand alone services. So people not looking to bundle do so because it is “cheaper” while poor people who cannot afford the higher price for the bundle get a real price hike with no value added.

Example: Feldco the Telco raises the price of basic local voice from $10 to $20, and raises the price of additional services taken a la carte from $5 to $10, but I offer a package of basic voice and five additional services for $30 (which I tell you charging $5 for voice and $ 5 for each additional feature). Any customer that can afford to upgrade to my bundled package will do so, because the “value” of the bundle (at my new prices) is $70 and you are getting it for $30. So even though you upgraded and are paying me more, the cost of basic voice (calculated as part of the package) just dropped by $5. What a savings! of course, the customers who cannot afford the additional $10 a month for the bundle experience a real price increase of $10.

Basically, the problem of wealth inequity that we have seen in every other sector of the economy — where the highest earners have enjoyed the greatest increases — is now mirrored in California's telecommunication service market. How did this happen? Do we care? And what does this tell us about the future of the metered internet, wireless competition, and the ever popular video competition?

Answers below . . . . [Read More!]