US media gets a new guardian at FCC
After much speculation and guess-work, President-elect Barack Obama has chosen his former Harvard Law classmate Julian Genachoswski as nominee for chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
Genachowski, who has been Obama’s technology advisor, had been on most people’s guess-list for a new “chief technology officer” post with the incoming administration — though some outlets had called it last week on his FCC appointment.
So who is Genachowski? Well, most outlets believe he should understand the future of media as he’s held several posts at Barry Diller’s Internet media business IACI and he’s previously been a chief counsel for former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, the chairman under former President Bill Clinton.
That experience will help with two big upcoming Internet-related issues. The first is Obama’s ambitious plan to invest in broadband technology expansion as part of his economic stimulus package.
The second more challenging issue is Net neutrality, the idea of an open and level Internet for all players regardless of their size. The FCC chair will be trying to manage the expectations of Internet service providers, content companies and everyday consumers.
But top of the list of his Genachowski’s to-do list will be ensuring the congressionally mandated conversion to digital television on Feb. 17 goes smoothly. Obama aides have backed an idea to delay the planned transition to avoid millions of televisions going blank.
(Photo: Reuters)
Digital TV transition tour to hit NASCAR circuit
Federal regulators and U.S. lawmakers are trying every trick in the book from Web sites to road shows to make sure Americans know that the digital television transition is coming soon — which could mean those without cable or satellite would only see black unless they buy a new television set or get a converter box.
On Thursday the Federal Communications Commission decided to take their efforts one step further — to NASCAR. The agency plans to sponsor driver David Gilliland (car #38) for three races of the widely popular spectator sport.
“I believe this sponsorship is an extremely effective way for the FCC to raise DTV awareness among people of all ages and income levels across the United States who loyally follow one of the most popular sports in America,” said FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.
Another FCC commissioner, Robert McDowell, earlier this week warned that the transition will be messy and pressed broadcasters to step up their campaign to educate the public about the Feb. 17, 2009 switch to the higher quality signals.
Some 15 percent of U.S. households use only analog sets so they would have to buy a converter box or a new set. The Government Accountability Office has warned that regulators are unprepared for an expected surge in consumer demand for help when the transition arrives.
The government has offered $40 coupons to help consumers buy converter boxes but the GAO has said there is no plan to deal with the last-minute spike in demand for them.
(Photos: Reuters)
Comcast FCC decision: the reactions
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission today ordered the largest U.S. cable TV operator Comcast Corp to change how it manages its broadband network. The regulator concluded that some of Comcast’s tactics unreasonably restrict Internet users who share movies and other material.
The 3 to 2 decision supported by two Democrat commissioners and the Republican chairman, is precedent-setting. It could kick-start a long-simmering ‘net neutrality’ debate between advocates, who believe Internet access should always be open without interference, and some Internet service providers, who believe they should be allowed to manage Internet delivery in order to provide the best service to all users. The FCC seemed to support the former group.
“Subscribers should be able to go where they want, when they want, and generally use the Internet in any legal means,” FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement.
Here are some reactions:
We are disappointed in the Commission’s divided conclusion because we believe that our network management choices were reasonable, wholly consistent with industry practices and that we did not block access to web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services. We also believe that the Commission’s order raises significant due process concerns and a variety of substantive legal questions. We are considering all our legal options and are disappointed that the commission rejected our attempts to settle this issue without further delays.
Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast senior director, Government Affairs
I believe today’s FCC action sends a strong message to the industry that the Commission intends to take Internet freedom principles seriously and will act to protect the integrity and openness of Internet commerce and communications. Vigilance by regulators and policymakers, coupled with a commitment to act when necessary, is vital to thwart the emergence of new bottlenecks to competition and innovation. I commend Chairman Martin, as well as Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, for their recognition of this fundamental tenet of realistic telecommunications policymaking.
Network Operators are foisting this fiction of an overloaded internet so they can limit competition, and because the hundreds of billions of dollars they were given to build out the network was never spent that way. If Congress re-enacts Local Loop Unbundling in a form that the courts can’t overturn, then we’ll have the same cheap and speedy OPEN internet they do in Korea, France, Great Britain, Japan, and many other countries who are ahead of the US in broadband/fiber deployment and buildout. It’s time these regulatory whores stopped crying foul when they get their hands slapped for behaving badly. They’re the ones who are all for regulation that grants them near monopoly market powers but are crying foul when they do something OBVIOUSLY to cut out the competition from Netflix and other video content providers, and then BLAME IT ON “illegal” filesharers (how convenient!)
Watch what the next move is– they go to Usage Based Pricing, but “exempt” their own pay per view movies from the usage. Same result– they kill the competition.
The only way to stop this is to open up the lines to competition.
Uncle Walt bends FCC chairman over his knee
Walt Mossberg, the world’s most powerful technology product reviewer, opened the final session of the D: All Things Digital conference with an angry tirade against the s-s-s-low state of broadband in the United States.
“WE ARE VERY SLOW,” Mossberg complained of U.S. Internet access speeds.
The target of 61-year-old Uncle Walt’s wrath was Kevin Martin, 42, the boyish-looking chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who was punished on-stage before an audience of high-tech industry insiders.
Mossberg: “You are the head of the FCC. How have you allowed this to happen? I AM DEAD SERIOUS. HOW HAVE YOU ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN?
Martin: “I am not sure I am solely responsible. I am also not sure the charts capture the whole story. I think you do have to put in the context some of the demographics of the United States and some of the countries we are competing against.
Mossberg: Does that explain why we pay $12.50 per megabit in the United States as opposed to $3.09 in Japan and $3.70 in France? Why are we paying four times as much?
Martin: Yes it does. Because it costs a lot more to build out in more rural areas and people who live further apart… We have a history of averaging some of the cost to make it affordable for people in Montana.
Martin should have seen it coming. Mossberg has been on a crusade over slow broadband speeds for some time, including a call to stop calling slower-speed DSL “broadband.” It’s just one of the many things that annoy him about how computer and consumer electronics industries treat their consumers. Other pet peeves include junk programs pre-installed by PC makers Mossberg calls craplets and any device that doesn’t aspire to Apple-scale product design genius.
Here are the stats that Mossberg and Martin were debating:
Just “[b]ecause it costs a lot more to build out in more rural areas and people who live further apart” doesn’t mean the service in cities and suburbs has too be so inferior. The averaging of costs may seem like a good excuse under a shallow cursory look, but it falls apart with examination.
