Posts tagged with: federal communications commission

Yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held a Senate hearing on his proposed bill, the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014. The bill, reading at just four pages, serves as a tool to combat “paid prioritization” in the network traffic business in an effort to maintain open competition in that market. This idea, known as net neutrality, as explained by Joe Carter, assumes “that a public information network should aspire to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally” as well as equal treatment in “giving users the bandwidth to reach the internet-connected services they prefer.” All of this has come under threat, as a DC Circuit Court struck down the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) power to regulate net neutrality on January 14 of this year.

Under proposed FCC rules poised to take effect this November, internet providers, like Comcast, would be able to charge tolls to broadband users, like Google, for speedier service to its site, with the ultimate cost burden being shifted upon consumers. The Christian Post explains how the new policy will impact faith based groups. Without net neutrality, service providers could censor the voices of religious advocacy groups, or anyone else unable to pay a premium, effectively violating the First Amendment and “stifl[ing] free speech rights.”

Since the FCC’s rollout of new regulations, Senator Leahy has mounted the “No Tollbooths For The Internet” campaign. Opponents of the bill argue that although traditional tolls are burdensome to drivers, they are essential in maintaining and repairing road systems for a better commute. Similarly, it is argued that internet tolls would be charged to companies to reach internet users in return for a superior service. (more…)

Blurring the distinction between religious faith and totally unrelated political activism has attained new levels of absurdity during the 2013 proxy resolution voting season.

One needs look no further than the network neutrality proxy resolutions submitted to AT&T Inc. by a host of clergy and religious organizations for evidence. These groups assert that net neutrality – described in their resolution as “open Internet policies” – “help drive the economy, encourage innovation and reward investors” when nothing could be further from the truth on all three counts.

Instead, the only groups advocating for net neutrality are left-of-center organizations who wish to shackle the profitability of Internet providers and stifle the growth of what has become one-sixth of the nation’s economy over the past 20 years. Joining these organizations with the AT&T proxy resolutions are the following Interfaith Council of Corporate Responsibility members:

  • Benedictine Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica, Rose Marie Stallbaumer, OSB;
  • Trillium Asset Management Corporation, Jonas Kron;
  • Benedictine Sisters of Virginia, Sr. Henry Marie Zimmermann, OSB;
  • Christus Health, Delia Foster;
  • Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Carolyn Psencik;
  • Nathan Cummings Foundation, Laura Shaffer Campos;
  • Congregation of Benedictine Sisters, Boerne TX, Sr. Susan Mika, OSB.

The resolution filed by these groups reads: “AT&T expects mobile data traffic to grow more than eight times from 2011 levels.

“A critical factor in this growth is the open (non-discriminatory) architecture of the Internet. Non-discrimination principles are commonly referred to as ‘network neutrality’ and seek to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment for all content.”

Keep in mind that Comcast sued the Federal Communications Commission over net neutrality regulations in 2010 – and won in a unanimous decision by the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. (more…)

I’m blogging a recent piece I did for NRO on National Public Radio funding but first a quick note on the net neutrality debate. House Speaker John Boehner told a meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters association, meeting in Nashville over the weekend, that “the last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades.” Amen. See my recent response to the Catholic bishops conference statement on net neutrality here.

Back to you, Corey.

‘Free’ Public Radio Is Anything But

By Bruce Edward Walker

National Public Radio listeners are being inundated with warnings that they soon may have to drive to work every morning without the sonorous intonations of Morning Edition’s Corey Flintoff, Steve Inskeep, and Renée Montagne, and may be forced to drive home without the narrative drone of All Things Considered’s Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Melissa Block.

Just this morning, I received a panicked e-mail from the director of broadcasting at an NPR affiliate in my home state, Michigan. You know, one of those state-based public-radio operations that just last October received a portion of George Soros’s $1.8 million Open Society Foundation gift to hire two government reporters in each of the 50 states; one of the same group of radio stations benefiting from the Joan Kroc Foundation’s $200 million endowment in 2003; one of the same stations that host interminable on-air fundraisers at least twice a year.

They are warning that Congress may eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that heaps money on 900 NPR affiliates across the country.

The warnings reek of disingenuousness.

After all, crying poverty is public broadcasting’s modus operandi. If it didn’t do it extremely well, no one would donate during those radiothons, corporations wouldn’t spend huge sums of money to sponsor programming, and “people just like you” wouldn’t forgo paying the cable bill so they could help meet a challenge grant from their neighbors and co-workers.
As an example of how much begging public radio does, Wisconsin Public Radio — a network of 32 stations programmed by seven regional stations – reported that 13 percent of its total budget in 2009 was used for fundraising. Additionally, the network’s website reveals that 25 percent ($1.94 million) of the revenues garnered from listener and corporate donations ($6.25 million and $1.58 million, respectively) are directly allocated to fundraising.

So it came as no surprise when I received the director’s e-mail, which warns, “I believe this is one of the most serious challenges to public broadcasting that we have ever faced.”
Not mentioned in his emotional appeal are the substantial costs American taxpayers are stuck with.

Read more here.

Other Acton essays on funding public broadcasting can be found here and here.

According to the Church Report’s Jennifer Morehouse, Parents Television Council President L. Brent Bozell is renewing an argument for the FCC to require a la carte cable programming. “It’s time to let the market decide what it wants on cable programming,” says Bozell.

I’m sympathetic to this view. I would prefer the option to be able to pick and choose which cable channels I pay for and get access to, instead of having to decide on subscription levels which include a lot of channels I’m not interested in.

But here’s where Bozell loses me: “Families, according to Bozell, have to pay for dozens of channels they do not watch and find offensive.” They only have to pay for them if they choose to have cable TV. Families make clear which of their desires are more powerful when they are willing to “subsidize some of the most graphic content imaginable” rather than forego cable television.

The market in this sense is working, as it is illustrating that cable consumers do not have sufficiently high interest to make it worthwhile for cable providers to respond and offer a la carte services. The problem with the cable market in the end is not that cable providers aren’t being required to offer a la carte, but that there is a lack of competition in local markets, although that is changing in a few places. Increased competition might make offering a la carte services more of a realistic option to give particular providers a competitive edge.

So, in my case, for instance, my desire for a la carte is not stronger than my desire for cable television/cable internet as it is now (although I do only get the lowest “basic” level of programming). I think this is probably representative of the position of many of the cable consumers Bozell is talking about. In no way, however, am I being forced to “subsidize the cable industry’s raunch.”

More on families and parenting in an age of technology later today.