http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/internet-users-stop-comca_b_112153.html
Timothy Karr
Internet Users Stop Comcast, Net Neutrality Win on the Horizon
July 11, 2008
Read More: Cable, Comcast, Fcc, Internet, Kevin Martin, Net Neutrality, SavetheInternet.Com, Media News
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is taking action against Comcast for illegally violating Net Neutrality, after a coalition of Net users and activists caught the cable giant blocking open access to the Internet.
Martin told the Associated Press last night that Comcast had "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access and failed to disclose to consumers what it was doing. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."
Topolski Ignites the Fire
The move is the agency's response to a complaint filed by Free Press and members of SavetheInternet.com, which called for severe action against Comcast for jamming people using popular "file-sharing" applications. But the story goes back further than that.
Organized People Beat Organized Money
Martin's action -- to be voted on by the full FCC in three weeks - would be a major milestone for the growing open Internet movement, marking another defeat of entrenched corporate interests in Washington and a stunning victory for ordinary people who want to control their Internet experience.
If adopted by the FCC, Martin's order could set an historic precedent for protecting the future of the open Internet. Against every ounce of conventional wisdom in Washington, everyday citizens and consumer advocates have taken on a major corporation and won a major victory.
The decision follows nearly a year of organizing and action by a growing alliance of bloggers, Internet innovators, consumer groups, organizations from across the political spectrum, and Net activists from all walks of life.
In that time, tens of thousands of people wrote the FCC in support of Net Neutrality after Free Press filed its complaint against Comcast and asked the agency to levy the largest fine in its history.
Comcast's "Shame"
Hundreds of others packed public hearings to speak out against would-be gatekeepers (even after Comcast notoriously attempted to keep them out by hiring drowsy seat warmers in Boston).
The Power of One
But it all started with one person. When barbershop quartet enthusiast Robb Topolski found Comcast was preventing him from sharing legal music files with other fans, he took to his computer and launched a one-man investigation.
Topolski uncovered conclusive evidence that Comcast was secretly blocking his uploads. His concerns echoed those of hundreds of other Comcast users, who had taken to the blogs and chat rooms to express their dismay.
He posted his findings on a single tech blog. This had a cascading effect, and soon dozens of others were writing about his findings. The Associated Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation conducted their own investigations with similar results. The evidence was indisputable: Comcast was blocking the Internet.
The wheels of government started churning. This time for the better.
The Fight Continues
Martin's move is a major victory. But this fight is far from over. His order has yet to pass, though it seems likely. The cable companies -- and the phone companies, too, even though they're trying to distance themselves from Comcast -- will be back with their money, lawyers and phony grassroots groups to try to take control of the Internet and establish themselves as gatekeepers.
Companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby Washington to gut Net Neutrality and hand over control of the Internet to them. But they so far have failed to overcome widespread and organized public opposition.
Today we can celebrate a huge victory for real people, but we need to continue this fight to send a clear signal to the next Congress and White House that standing with regular people for a free and open Internet is a winning proposition.
Showing posts with label Kevin Martin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin Martin. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
FCC Vote Ignites Firestorm of Protest
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/blog/?p=178
FCC Vote Ignites Firestorm of Protest
Thursday, December 20th, 2007
Tuesday, when FCC Chairman Kevin Martin rammed through his plans to allow one company to own the major newspaper and a TV or radio station in the same city, he lit a fire under Congress and sparked outrage across the country. The response to the FCC’s decision to lift the 30-year-old newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban has been swift and promises to escalate in 2008.
In just 48 hours, more than 165,000 people have signed an open letter to Congress calling for Martin’s new rules to be overturned.
Burning Down the House
Although Kevin Martin has chosen to ignore the public, Congress is taking notice. Twenty-six senators sent a letter to Martin last week vowing to “immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule.”
Less than 24 hours after the controversial FCC vote, Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) introduced the “Media Ownership Act of 2007” (H.R. 4835) – the House companion to a Senate bill (S. 2332) sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) — legislation that would overturn disastrous new media rules approved by the FCC.
“This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free.” He continued: “We’re taking swift action to hopefully prevent these changes from affecting our communities and the families at home. I respect the free market and want a marketplace that allows corporations to operate as freely as possible. However, I believe it is a role of government to stand between corporations and consumers when the public interest is at stake. I will continue to do what I can to maintain a diverse, free and unbiased source of news for my constituents and across this nation.”
At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing earlier this month, Congressman Inslee chastised FCC Chairman Martin for announcing the Seattle hearing on short notice. He said that Martin treated Seattle residents “like a bunch of chumps” by unveiling his new rules in a New York Times op-ed almost immediately following the hearing. Martin admitted at that hearing that he already had his mind made up and his editorial drafted before the Seattle hearing.
Carrying the Wood
When Martin’s rush to change this rule was first uncovered by the New York Times, Sen. Byron Dorgan promised that there would be a firestorm of protest and he would be “carrying the wood.” However, the public outrage at Martin and the FCC was smoldering long before his secret plans were revealed.
The public distaste for Martin’s plan was first exhibited at the FCC’s public hearings on media ownership and localism. Thousands of people showed up in Los Angeles, Nashville, Harrisburg, Pa., Tampa, Fla., Portland, Maine, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Seattle — sometimes with only a week’s notice — to testify against further media consolidation. In Washington on Halloween, Martin had to face spirited “FCC cheerleaders,” while in Seattle “media zombies” roamed the streets outside the hearing.
This kind of creativity was echoed elsewhere in the campaign and throughout the country. Chicago Media Action sang “carols” outside Tribune Co. headquarters. Activists built a Potterwatch Web site and recorded a “Wizard Rock” album to rally fans of the Harry Potter series against media consolidation. And a YouTube video opposing Martin’s early “Christmas gift” to Big Media has been watched nearly 80,000 times.
Those denied the opportunity to voice their opposition directly to all five FCC took their protest online. More than 100,000 individuals have contacted Congress and the FCC and thousands more have posted their pictures on a virtual wall of protest at StopBigMedia.com. A broad-based coalition of organizations has taken up this issue, including more than 20 civil rights groups that called upon the FCC to first address the media diversity crisis before considering any new rules. These diverse faces and voices are a powerful reminder that media consolidation is not just an inside-the-Beltway issue.
The fight is far from over. Martin’s insistence on pushing through this favor to his big business buddies is only going to fan the flames outrage across the country. It won’t be long until he gets burned.
FCC Vote Ignites Firestorm of Protest
Thursday, December 20th, 2007
Tuesday, when FCC Chairman Kevin Martin rammed through his plans to allow one company to own the major newspaper and a TV or radio station in the same city, he lit a fire under Congress and sparked outrage across the country. The response to the FCC’s decision to lift the 30-year-old newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban has been swift and promises to escalate in 2008.
In just 48 hours, more than 165,000 people have signed an open letter to Congress calling for Martin’s new rules to be overturned.
Burning Down the House
Although Kevin Martin has chosen to ignore the public, Congress is taking notice. Twenty-six senators sent a letter to Martin last week vowing to “immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule.”
Less than 24 hours after the controversial FCC vote, Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) introduced the “Media Ownership Act of 2007” (H.R. 4835) – the House companion to a Senate bill (S. 2332) sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) — legislation that would overturn disastrous new media rules approved by the FCC.
“This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free.” He continued: “We’re taking swift action to hopefully prevent these changes from affecting our communities and the families at home. I respect the free market and want a marketplace that allows corporations to operate as freely as possible. However, I believe it is a role of government to stand between corporations and consumers when the public interest is at stake. I will continue to do what I can to maintain a diverse, free and unbiased source of news for my constituents and across this nation.”
At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing earlier this month, Congressman Inslee chastised FCC Chairman Martin for announcing the Seattle hearing on short notice. He said that Martin treated Seattle residents “like a bunch of chumps” by unveiling his new rules in a New York Times op-ed almost immediately following the hearing. Martin admitted at that hearing that he already had his mind made up and his editorial drafted before the Seattle hearing.
Carrying the Wood
When Martin’s rush to change this rule was first uncovered by the New York Times, Sen. Byron Dorgan promised that there would be a firestorm of protest and he would be “carrying the wood.” However, the public outrage at Martin and the FCC was smoldering long before his secret plans were revealed.
The public distaste for Martin’s plan was first exhibited at the FCC’s public hearings on media ownership and localism. Thousands of people showed up in Los Angeles, Nashville, Harrisburg, Pa., Tampa, Fla., Portland, Maine, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Seattle — sometimes with only a week’s notice — to testify against further media consolidation. In Washington on Halloween, Martin had to face spirited “FCC cheerleaders,” while in Seattle “media zombies” roamed the streets outside the hearing.
This kind of creativity was echoed elsewhere in the campaign and throughout the country. Chicago Media Action sang “carols” outside Tribune Co. headquarters. Activists built a Potterwatch Web site and recorded a “Wizard Rock” album to rally fans of the Harry Potter series against media consolidation. And a YouTube video opposing Martin’s early “Christmas gift” to Big Media has been watched nearly 80,000 times.
Those denied the opportunity to voice their opposition directly to all five FCC took their protest online. More than 100,000 individuals have contacted Congress and the FCC and thousands more have posted their pictures on a virtual wall of protest at StopBigMedia.com. A broad-based coalition of organizations has taken up this issue, including more than 20 civil rights groups that called upon the FCC to first address the media diversity crisis before considering any new rules. These diverse faces and voices are a powerful reminder that media consolidation is not just an inside-the-Beltway issue.
The fight is far from over. Martin’s insistence on pushing through this favor to his big business buddies is only going to fan the flames outrage across the country. It won’t be long until he gets burned.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
FCC Chairman’s Big Media Giveaway Exposed
http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=303
November 26, 2007
Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490, x22
FCC Chairman’s Big Media Giveaway Exposed
Free Press report outlines 10 facts Kevin Martin ‘doesn’t want you to know’ about cross-ownership proposal
WASHINGTON — Today, Free Press released Devil in the Details, a report exposing 10 key facts that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is hiding from the public about his recent proposal to lift the longstanding ban on “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.”
Using a carefully crafted PR campaign — including an op-ed in the New York Times — Chairman Martin has portrayed his proposal as a “moderate compromise” that would only allow one company to own both a daily newspaper and a broadcast TV or radio station in the 20 largest media markets.
But Devil in the Details exposes how the loose and ambiguous “waiver” standard proposed by Martin creates a giant loophole for big media companies to sidestep the ban in any market and for any station.
“Chairman Martin’s double-speak can’t disguise the fact that his proposal would gut the cross-ownership ban everywhere,” said Derek Turner, research director of Free Press and co-author of the report. “The reality is that Martin’s plan is no moderate compromise. If passed, the new rules would unleash unprecedented consolidation across the country.”
To stop a merger in the top 20 markets, the burden of proof would rest with average citizens and public interest groups opposing the deal. Outside the top 20 markets, the burden of proof would rest with media companies — the same companies that control all the information and could make promises that would be almost impossible to enforce.
“Martin’s proposal stacks the decks against the public interest,” said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press and co-author of the report. “The expensive and bureaucratic waiver process would pit the limited resources of average American citizens against giant media companies with the money and time to game the system.”
As this new report illustrates, Martin’s rhetoric can’t match the reality that his plan is a massive giveaway to the largest media companies. The 10 facts about the proposal include:
FACT #1: Martin’s “modest” proposal is corporate welfare for Big Media. Martin’s plan would unleash a buying spree in the top 20 markets, making it easier for companies like Belo, News Corp. and Tribune Co. to push out independent, local owners.
FACT #2: Loopholes open the door to cross-ownership in any market. Under Martin’s loose standards, cross-ownership waivers could be approved in hundreds of smaller cities and towns.
FACT #3: Loopholes allow newspapers to own TV stations of any size. The same technicalities could permit top-rated stations in any market to combine with major newspapers.
FACT #4: FCC history shows weak standards won’t protect the public. The current rules forbid cross-ownership, but the FCC hasn’t denied any temporary waiver request in years.
FACT #5: Cross-ownership doesn’t create more local news. The latest studies — using the FCC’s own data — show that markets with cross-ownership produce less total local news, as one dominant company crowds out the competition.
FACT #6: Cross-ownership won’t solve newspapers’ financial woes. Claims that the newspaper industry is about to “wither and die” are greatly exaggerated, and no evidence shows that cross-ownership would make things better.
FACT # 7: The Internet is an opportunity, not a death sentence. Mergers and consolidation are not the answer to the financial problems of the traditional media.
FACT #8: Martin’s plan would harm minority media owners. Nearly half of the nation’s minority-owned TV stations are lower-rated outlets in the top 20 markets, making them a target for Big Media takeovers.
FACT # 9: A broken and corrupt process creates bad policies. The FCC’s lack of transparency, flawed research and secret timetable have tossed aside basic fairness and accountability in the rush to change media ownership rules.
FACT # 10: The public doesn’t want more media consolidation. Martin’s actions ignore the millions of Americans — and 99 percent of the comments in the FCC docket — who oppose letting a few media giants swallow up more local media.
“Chairman Martin has demonstrated an unyielding determination to ignore the public will and any evidence that challenges his predetermined conclusions,” said Craig Aaron, communications director of Free Press and co-author of the report. “His proposal undermines the FCC’s fundamental responsibility to protect competition, localism and diversity over the public airwaves. It’s now up to Congress to put the brakes on runaway media consolidation.”
Read Devil in the Details:
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/devil_in_the_details.pdf
November 26, 2007
Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490, x22
FCC Chairman’s Big Media Giveaway Exposed
Free Press report outlines 10 facts Kevin Martin ‘doesn’t want you to know’ about cross-ownership proposal
WASHINGTON — Today, Free Press released Devil in the Details, a report exposing 10 key facts that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is hiding from the public about his recent proposal to lift the longstanding ban on “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.”
Using a carefully crafted PR campaign — including an op-ed in the New York Times — Chairman Martin has portrayed his proposal as a “moderate compromise” that would only allow one company to own both a daily newspaper and a broadcast TV or radio station in the 20 largest media markets.
But Devil in the Details exposes how the loose and ambiguous “waiver” standard proposed by Martin creates a giant loophole for big media companies to sidestep the ban in any market and for any station.
“Chairman Martin’s double-speak can’t disguise the fact that his proposal would gut the cross-ownership ban everywhere,” said Derek Turner, research director of Free Press and co-author of the report. “The reality is that Martin’s plan is no moderate compromise. If passed, the new rules would unleash unprecedented consolidation across the country.”
To stop a merger in the top 20 markets, the burden of proof would rest with average citizens and public interest groups opposing the deal. Outside the top 20 markets, the burden of proof would rest with media companies — the same companies that control all the information and could make promises that would be almost impossible to enforce.
“Martin’s proposal stacks the decks against the public interest,” said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press and co-author of the report. “The expensive and bureaucratic waiver process would pit the limited resources of average American citizens against giant media companies with the money and time to game the system.”
As this new report illustrates, Martin’s rhetoric can’t match the reality that his plan is a massive giveaway to the largest media companies. The 10 facts about the proposal include:
FACT #1: Martin’s “modest” proposal is corporate welfare for Big Media. Martin’s plan would unleash a buying spree in the top 20 markets, making it easier for companies like Belo, News Corp. and Tribune Co. to push out independent, local owners.
FACT #2: Loopholes open the door to cross-ownership in any market. Under Martin’s loose standards, cross-ownership waivers could be approved in hundreds of smaller cities and towns.
FACT #3: Loopholes allow newspapers to own TV stations of any size. The same technicalities could permit top-rated stations in any market to combine with major newspapers.
FACT #4: FCC history shows weak standards won’t protect the public. The current rules forbid cross-ownership, but the FCC hasn’t denied any temporary waiver request in years.
FACT #5: Cross-ownership doesn’t create more local news. The latest studies — using the FCC’s own data — show that markets with cross-ownership produce less total local news, as one dominant company crowds out the competition.
FACT #6: Cross-ownership won’t solve newspapers’ financial woes. Claims that the newspaper industry is about to “wither and die” are greatly exaggerated, and no evidence shows that cross-ownership would make things better.
FACT # 7: The Internet is an opportunity, not a death sentence. Mergers and consolidation are not the answer to the financial problems of the traditional media.
FACT #8: Martin’s plan would harm minority media owners. Nearly half of the nation’s minority-owned TV stations are lower-rated outlets in the top 20 markets, making them a target for Big Media takeovers.
FACT # 9: A broken and corrupt process creates bad policies. The FCC’s lack of transparency, flawed research and secret timetable have tossed aside basic fairness and accountability in the rush to change media ownership rules.
FACT # 10: The public doesn’t want more media consolidation. Martin’s actions ignore the millions of Americans — and 99 percent of the comments in the FCC docket — who oppose letting a few media giants swallow up more local media.
“Chairman Martin has demonstrated an unyielding determination to ignore the public will and any evidence that challenges his predetermined conclusions,” said Craig Aaron, communications director of Free Press and co-author of the report. “His proposal undermines the FCC’s fundamental responsibility to protect competition, localism and diversity over the public airwaves. It’s now up to Congress to put the brakes on runaway media consolidation.”
Read Devil in the Details:
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/devil_in_the_details.pdf
Friday, November 16, 2007
Your FCC At Work
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/your-fcc-at-work_b_72387.html
Marty Kaplan
Your FCC At Work
Posted November 13, 2007
Read More: Fcc, FCC Chairman, FCC Chairman's New York Times Op-Ed, FCC Media Consolidation, Kevin Martin, Kevin Martin FCC, Kevin Martin's New York Times Op-Ed, Media Consolidation, Newspaper Industry, Newspapers, Radio, Radio Station Ownership, Breaking Politics News
In the most bizarre example yet of GOP corporate welfare, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has taken to the op-ed page of the New York Times to propose that -- in order to save the newspaper industry -- big-city papers should now be permitted to purchase a television or radio station in their market.
His rationale is breathtaking. To appreciate it, you first have to set aside some inconvenient truths. Like the finding of one of the FCC's own studies of localism (a quality that the law mandates the FCC to encourage) -- a study suppressed because they didn't like the results -- that television stations with distant owners (like, say, corporations that own chains of newspapers) do a worse job at localism than locally-owned stations. Or the finding of another FCC study that radio-newspaper cross-ownership "is associated with significantly less news coverage" on the radio station. Or the analysis of the FCC's own data that shows that cross ownership leads to less total newsgathering in a market, because the other stations realize they can't compete on news, so they focus on sports, weather or something else, like freeway chases or celebrity crime. You also have to ignore the underlying economic facts of the newspaper industry, which totally undermine Chairman Martin's "endangered species" argument.
But just put all that out of your mind, and focus instead on the nub of his argument: the reason that newspapers should be allowed to own television or radio stations is that those broadcast outlets are cash cows. And just why are they so profitable? Chairman Martin doesn't connect these dots, but let's do it for him.
It's because the FCC doesn't require them to pay a penny in exchange for their licenses to broadcast over the public's airwaves.
It's because the FCC lets television stations renew their licenses every eight years by sending a postcard to Washington, rather than requiring them to demonstrate that they serve the public interest.
It's because television and radio stations can broadcast whatever they want on the public's airwaves, without regard to fair representation of diverse points of view.
It's because the FCC has allowed television and radio station ownership to become a white boys' club, without regard to the public interest that might be served by minority or women ownership.
It's because those stations not only have largely abandoned, with impunity, their obligation to cover local politics and public affairs -- they have found in political advertising a gusher of revenue.
So let's put Chairman Martin's argument together.
The public has given away, for free, its airwaves, to stations that generally do a dreadful job covering politics in their news programming, but that reap big bucks from political candidates, who in turn get the billions they spend on political ads from the public, and now the public is being asked to cut the newspaper industry in on that extortion racket in order to save democracy.
Next thing you know, we'll be asked to give tax breaks to oil companies. Oh, wait.
Marty Kaplan
Your FCC At Work
Posted November 13, 2007
Read More: Fcc, FCC Chairman, FCC Chairman's New York Times Op-Ed, FCC Media Consolidation, Kevin Martin, Kevin Martin FCC, Kevin Martin's New York Times Op-Ed, Media Consolidation, Newspaper Industry, Newspapers, Radio, Radio Station Ownership, Breaking Politics News
In the most bizarre example yet of GOP corporate welfare, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has taken to the op-ed page of the New York Times to propose that -- in order to save the newspaper industry -- big-city papers should now be permitted to purchase a television or radio station in their market.
His rationale is breathtaking. To appreciate it, you first have to set aside some inconvenient truths. Like the finding of one of the FCC's own studies of localism (a quality that the law mandates the FCC to encourage) -- a study suppressed because they didn't like the results -- that television stations with distant owners (like, say, corporations that own chains of newspapers) do a worse job at localism than locally-owned stations. Or the finding of another FCC study that radio-newspaper cross-ownership "is associated with significantly less news coverage" on the radio station. Or the analysis of the FCC's own data that shows that cross ownership leads to less total newsgathering in a market, because the other stations realize they can't compete on news, so they focus on sports, weather or something else, like freeway chases or celebrity crime. You also have to ignore the underlying economic facts of the newspaper industry, which totally undermine Chairman Martin's "endangered species" argument.
But just put all that out of your mind, and focus instead on the nub of his argument: the reason that newspapers should be allowed to own television or radio stations is that those broadcast outlets are cash cows. And just why are they so profitable? Chairman Martin doesn't connect these dots, but let's do it for him.
It's because the FCC doesn't require them to pay a penny in exchange for their licenses to broadcast over the public's airwaves.
It's because the FCC lets television stations renew their licenses every eight years by sending a postcard to Washington, rather than requiring them to demonstrate that they serve the public interest.
It's because television and radio stations can broadcast whatever they want on the public's airwaves, without regard to fair representation of diverse points of view.
It's because the FCC has allowed television and radio station ownership to become a white boys' club, without regard to the public interest that might be served by minority or women ownership.
It's because those stations not only have largely abandoned, with impunity, their obligation to cover local politics and public affairs -- they have found in political advertising a gusher of revenue.
So let's put Chairman Martin's argument together.
The public has given away, for free, its airwaves, to stations that generally do a dreadful job covering politics in their news programming, but that reap big bucks from political candidates, who in turn get the billions they spend on political ads from the public, and now the public is being asked to cut the newspaper industry in on that extortion racket in order to save democracy.
Next thing you know, we'll be asked to give tax breaks to oil companies. Oh, wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
