Broadband
"Broadband" refers to high-speed Internet connections that allow for transfers of information at rates far faster than those of dial-up modems.
The basic
ground rules for the broadband revolution are much too important to
leave to a handful of media conglomerates to determine. For the
deployment of the new, high-speed, "last-mile" connections will largely
shape the ways in which we'll communicate in the twenty-first century.
5 Questions on Broadband's Future
5 Questions on Broadband's Future
In the interest of advancing the discussion of the broadband future beyond the industry's bullish pronouncements, here are five basic questions that will have to be addressed if the public interest is served in the broadband era:
1. Traffic Management: While it is necessary to arbitrate among competing claims on network resources, will some transport-management schemes artificially favor certain types of content or services at the expense of others (in order to gain a market advantage, for example). What happens to the principle of "common carriage" if the carriage in question grants premium service to some data while relegating others to third-class transit?
2. Screen Real-estate: Will menus and other navigational aids, including the placement of content on the screen and the prominence of certain links, be used in a discriminatory manner, favoring some programming over others? Will there be opportunities for users to select and/or customize their own start pages and hot lists?
3. Proprietary Content: Will the "branding" of content and services that has become increasingly common on the World Wide Web, in which various products and services are "bundled" according to their corporate affiliations (and content is cached locally to expedite delivery), serve to limit rather than expand our online options? How much incentive will users have to venture beyond corporate portals, and how much freedom will they have to go wherever they want in their online travels?
4. Inter-passivity: The illusion of participation that today's multimedia diversions often create has been aptly described as inter-passive, in contrast to more robust forms of recreation of the past (from sports to storytelling to song and dance). Will the impending era of "interactive television," marrying broadcast and digital technologies, pose similar illusions? In an environment in which even the broadest array of programmatic, promotional, and mercantile choices are in fact constrained by an intricate, if invisible, network of corporate alliances, is consumer choice itself an illusion?
5. The Set-Top Box: Often described as the most valuable square foot of real-estate in the world, the set-top box is about to become even more valuable in the broadband era, as the centerpiece of a new system of interactive television, e-commerce, and Internet services. And yet the set-top is also largely a black box, seemingly beyond the control of Washington to regulate and certainly beyond the ability of most consumers to understand. Can we afford to cede so much control to network operators, who, literally left to their own devices, will transform the intelligent set-top box into a vending machine for proprietary content and closely monitored transactions?
Broadband Narrowing the Net
Neither Worldly nor Wide:
How Broadband Systems will Narrow the Net
There is nothing in the architecture of the broadband Internet (i.e., high-speed transmission via cable, DSL, satellite, or wireless systems) that is inherently restrictive. Indeed, the increase in transmission speeds alone--theoretically up to 100 times that of standard dial-up modems--should usher in an era of expanded online service, with streaming audio and video becoming as common as static text and graphics are today.
Unfortunately, in the absence of public-interest safeguards, the promise of broadband may never be realized in practice, for three basic reasons:
Data Management: the use of type-of-service (TOS) and quality-of-service (QOS) provisions of the Internet protocol (IP) to favor some data traffic over others. Thus instead of resolving disputes between competing claims on network resources in an evenhanded, equitable fashion, policy-based routing might be employed to expedite the delivery of content affiliated with the network owner, while relegating competing content to slower lanes of traffic.
Proprietary Content: Network owners will use a variety of enhancements (e.g., local caching, navigational aids, menus, program guides, start screens) to highlight their own and affiliated content at the expense of other fare (including noncommercial programming), which will be excluded from on-screen menus and program guides. Even when such enhancements are made available to other programmers, the cost involved may be prohibitive for most nonprofits.
Differentiated Service: The broadband environment will be characterized by tiered levels of service, subscription and pay-per-click programming, and a general distinction between the "haves" and the "have mores." In this context, without the kind of allowances that it has received in the analog world (e.g., spectrum set-asides, e-rate subsidies) the nonprofit sector will suffer.
Especially as it migrates to the television and set-top box in various ITV implementations, the Internet faces a critical trade-off that may forever change its character. For what we gain in speed and simplicity of online access in the new broadband systems, we stand to lose in depth and diversity. The real danger is not that the Internet will become ever more commercialized as it makes this transition into the mainstream media. For that trend, which began with the privatization of the Internet in the early 1990s, is inevitable in any case. The real danger is that in adapting itself for the streamlined, menu-driven interface of ITV, and for the small screens of various wireless portable devices (including phones and PDAs), the Internet will be reduced to a small subset of featured Web sites. Within the broadband context, in other words, the World Wide Web will be neither worldly nor wide.
Part of the reason for this narrowing of the Net is technological. The Web, in its present configuration, with its graphically rich, often complex pages (over 2 billion in all), is not well suited to either television screens (which lack the resolution of computer monitors) or to small, wireless devices (which lack the requisite display size). While pages can be translated into versions that conform to either the ITV or the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) format, the expense and complexity of maintaining multiple sets of pages is beyond the reach of all but the largest, most well funded sites.
But another part of the broadband Internet problem (and the part that may prove insurmountable, absent regulation) is purely economic. Seeking to extend to the online world the same near-monopoly status that it enjoys with video programming in most markets, the cable industry is designing and deploying ITV systems that offer only the illusion of online choice. Dubbed "walled gardens" by supporters and skeptics alike, cable's new "managed-content areas" amount to proprietary versions of "Internet Lite."
While it remains to be seen how the wireless and satellite broadband networks will be deployed, the world of DSL, only marginally more competitive than cable in its accommodation of competitive ISPs, poses many of the same risks as cable to the future openness and diversity of the Internet. In a thoroughly commercialized environment (regardless of the platform involved), the survival of noncommercial programmers, and thus of the public interest, is at risk.
Broadband Primer
Broadband Primer
What is Broadband?
"Broadband" refers to high-speed Internet connections that allow for transfers of information at rates far faster than those of dial-up modems. While the Internet has often been jokingly referred to as the "World Wide Wait" on account of slow downloads, Broadband connections allow people to view streaming media at speeds closer to what might be associated with television, rather than the herky-jerky experience that characterizes dial-up modems. Transfer speeds for Broadband are up to 50 times faster than via dial-up modems, creating the opportunity for people to download mp3s (compressed digital audio files) or films without having to wait for hours.
Broadband connections are offered on a variety of platforms, including DSL (Digital Subscriber Line), cable, satellite, and wireless.
Will Broadband become the norm any time soon?
According to JD Power and Associates, "High-speed ISP subscriptions account for 13 percent of all residential ISP subscriptions in the United States. This penetration increased significantly from 5 percent in 2000. Among current dial-up subscribers, 10 percent state that they are 'extremely' or 'very likely' to switch to a DSL and/or cable modem connection in the next six months." Analysts believe that the number of Broadband users will rise dramatically between 2001 and 2004, estimating over 60 million users in the United States (source: eMarketer). Within 5 to 10 years, Broadband will replace dial-up modems as the standard means of Internet connection.
What does "Common Carriage" refer to?
Dial-up modems allow for the transfer of information over phone lines, and are thus governed by a set of nondiscrimination rules applying to telephone networks. Mirroring the US policy for the public highways, the telephone industry has been required to serve consumers as "Common Carriers." The policies of common carriage--particularly the requirement that phone companies not discriminate against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of data--have been central to the growth of the Internet into a diverse, competitive medium. Common carriage permitted the development of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) marketplace, affording users the opportunity to go online via one of the more than 7,000 companies that compete with such giants as AOL and Microsoft.
What does "Open Access" refer to?
Open Access is the principle that has governed the Internet since its inception. It is synonymous with the idea of open architecture. The Internet was originally designed as a pipeline that would treat all information in a nondiscriminatory fashion, a design referred to as "end-to-end" because no gatekeeper could control how the data would be treated. The common carrier rules governing telephone networks contributed to the Net's open access design.
Why is Open Access such an important issue?
Since Broadband will become a dominant method of Internet connection, the lack of common carriage protection and open architecture safeguards pose a threat to all Net users. Cable and satellite companies, for example, are not required to operate as open access networks when providing high-speed Net service. And local phone companies are lobbying to remove or weaken their open access requirements when they provide consumers with high-speed DSL services.
Without open access safeguards there is a tremendous potential for large Internet service providers (ISPs), such as AOL-Time Warner or Verizon, to control the flow of information. For example, without a nondiscrimination rule, there is nothing to stop these large ISPs from providing their own content first class treatment and the highest download speeds, while nonaffiliated content would be forced into the online "economy" (or even slower) class. For the many groups that will not be able to afford the ISPs prices for first class treatment (including nonprofit groups, independent artists, and others), this likely would severely limit their Web presence. For without open access, the rules of Internet commerce and communications will be determined by the telecom giants, rather than the public.
What does "convergence" refer to?
Convergence refers to the merging of previously distinct media into one product or service. various home recreational technologies into one marketable whole. For instance, several companies are creating boxes for deployment that include gaming capabilities (e.g., Sony's Playstation 2) as well as high-speed Internet capabilities. The media and entertainment industries believe that the creation and deployment of a product that combines television, home stereo, telephone, gaming systems, the Internet, and other technologies will be an extraordinarily marketable good. As AOL-Time Warner CEO Steve Case said in a recent keynote address, "Every decade has some word associated with it. In the '80s, it was the PC. In the '90s, it was the Internet. For the rest of this decade, the key word is going to be convergence."
What is "Interactive Television?"
Interactive TV (ITV) represents the merging of television and Internet capabilities, and is being created in various forms. Some will allow for viewers to watch TV while "chatting" online or sending IMs (instant messages); some have personal video recording (PVR) capabilities that allow users to set preferences in order for the set-top box to automatically record not only their favorite shows and movies, but other shows and movies that the box might "suggest." Others allow the user to click on parts of the screen during a show or commercial to find out more about that object, a feature that ad-makers expect to help create a huge market of interactive consumers.
However, the same concerns that consumer groups have regarding Open Access also apply to ITV, which is expected to be in nearly 40 million US households by 2004. Additionally, there are significant privacy threats that are being embedded into the architecture of ITV-an industry being built around the premise of data collection. CDD's report, "TV that Watches You: The Prying Eyes of Interactive Television," details the extensive data collection practices of the ITV industry.
Communities Lack Control over Telecom Services
Tale of Two Broadband Cases Illustrates Battle over Net’s Future
6 April 2004
The continuing battle over whether broadband will be a democratic and competitive medium was the subject of two recent federal court decisions. But what both cases illustrate is that the nation’s telephone and cable industries want to extend their monopolistic business models onto the Internet.
In a blow to community control over broadband, the U.S. Supreme Court on 24 March 2004 ruled that states can prohibit municipal governments from operating their own telecommunications networks. In siding with the telephone industry, the court’s 8-1 decision favors the huge corporate interests that have waged a campaign against community ownership of telecommunications, including broadband. The court’s ruling came in the consolidated cases of Nixon v.Missouri Municipal League, FCC v. Missouri Municipal League, and Southwestern Bell Telephone v. Missouri Municipal League.
Telephone companies have gone state to state to pressure too-often compliant state legislators into passing legislation that prohibits communities from establishing their own telecommunications service. Municipal networks, as they are sometimes called, can provide their communities with enhanced service at lower costs. The focus of the Supreme Court’s review was on the interpretation of the wording in a provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and whether that act permitted states to preempt municipal provision of telephone and broadband services.
But the nation’s telephone lobby—including SBC, Verizon, Bell South and the United States Telephone Association—were not interested in legal definitions. Rather, they were concerned with preventing the emergence of community-controlled broadband. For example, in its court brief, SBC decried the idea that a small town in Missouri actually wanted to use some fiber capacity to serve its own telecommunications needs (thus giving the city more control over its voice and data network and offering its citizens cost savings over the phone company’s residential rates).
The case began in 1996 when Missouri passed a law prohibiting local governments from offering telecommunications services. The Missouri Municipal League, representing local governments, asked the FCC to intervene, citing the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s encouragement of all entities, presumably including cities, to compete in the telecom market. The FCC, unfortunately, failed to support the cities. The telephone industry, meanwhile, has been steadily lobbying state lawmakers to pass similar bills. So far there are restrictions on municipal networks in Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
State bills and this new federal court decision are designed to prevent or weaken a community’s ability to provide broadband and other telecom or cable services. They aim to undermine or prevent broadband from emerging as a public utility, offering the benefits of the Internet to all in a cost-effective and democratic fashion. The cable industry is also pursuing a political campaign against such community networks. Recently, Comcast joined with SBC in a well-funded ad campaign that undermined public support for a community network serving three small towns in Illinois. According to the Tri-City Broadband Coalition, both Comcast and SBC distorted the record. Cities and their supporters will now be turning to Congress for legislation that can restore community ownership of broadband.
Meanwhile, in a separate court decision, the cable industry’s lobbying effort to undermine the Internet’s open architecture (by denying Internet service providers access to cable networks) was temporarily derailed on 1 April 2004. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a decision by one its panels that ruled against a recent FCC policy backed by the cable lobby. By refusing to review the case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a decision ruling that the FCC should regulate cable broadband with the same safeguards required of DSL networks, including choice of ISP and nondiscriminatory service. The cable industry has been threatened by the Internet since the development of the World Wide Web, recognizing that cable’s monopoly business model of controlling both conduit and content would be challenged if any user/viewer could easily download all forms of multimedia content. Cable found a valuable ally in FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who declared in 2002 that cable would not be required to operate in the “end-to-end” open network tradition of the dial-up Internet. ISPs and public interest groups, including CDD, took the commission to court. The Media Access Project represented CDD, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union in what was called the “Brand X” case (the name of the Santa Monica-based ISP calling for the FCC rule to be overturned). The cable lobby is now pressuring the FCC to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Investment in Cable Broadband Infrastructure
Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason
University of Michigan
November 1999
Excerpt:
The cable television industry in the United States has stated that its overarching goal is to transform from traditional multichannel video program providers to full service telecommunications providers, able to offer to consumers a full range of services, including video, local and long distance telephony, and high-speed Internet access services. AT&T is the exemplar: it has embarked on a massive program to deliver a bundle of telecommunications and advanced information services to U.S. residences. In the past year, AT&T has catapulted to become the nation’s largest cable operator through its acquisition of TCI and its proposed acquisition of Media One. Moreover, through a series of joint ventures with most of the other large cable providers, AT&T is positioned to deliver local phone service over cable to a substantial portion of the homes passed by cable in the U.S.
The Internet at Risk
The Internet at Risk: Broadband Networks and Narrow Visions
At first glance, the recent debate over competitive access to the emerging broadband cable networks-the Internet delivery platform of choice in the coming years-seemed like just another corporate squabble. Initially, AOL challenged AT&T over access to the latter's growing cable holdings. Once it became a cable landlord itself, however, with its acquisition of Time Warner (the nation's second-largest cable provider, behind AT&T), AOL quickly retreated from the broadband battles. Instead of standing by its call for open-access regulations, AOL now claimed that the marketplace would provide a solution to the open-access puzzle.
That may well be the case, but a market-based solution, negotiated in the back rooms of corporate America, is not likely to be one that will serve the public interest. And the basic ground rules for the broadband revolution are much too important to leave to a handful of media conglomerates to determine. For the deployment of the new, high-speed, "last-mile" connections will largely shape the ways in which we'll communicate in the twenty-first century. These broadband networks will affect both the nature and range of the news and entertainment we receive, as well as the extent to which we will be able to exchange information and share our views with others. In particular, a cable-controlled broadband system threatens to undermine the basic open, democratic character of the Internet:
Access: Under the cable industry's closed model, all but a handful of the nation's 6,000-plus ISPs will be excluded from the new broadband networks.
Diversity: Content owned by or affiliated with the reigning cable providers will receive preferential service, relegating competitive and nonprofit material to the slower lanes.
Democracy: Tiered levels of service, priced according to the ability of both producers and consumers to pay for premium service, will erode the concept of Universal Service, limiting the access of many Americans to online services.
Choice: Far fewer ISPs, differentiated levels of service, and the closed cable model all add up to severely reduced choice for American consumers.
Industry's gain, in other words, will be society's loss. At stake, then, is the potential for an open, democratic network, one that combines the ease and ubiquity of television with the variety and interactivity of the Internet. This may be our last, best chance, in fact, to establish the electronic "civic sector" that has proven so elusive in an increasingly market-driven media system. "In a field where exaggeration is common," concludes Andrew J. Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, in a front-page New York Times story, "it is fair to say that this issue is regarded as the most important public policy question in telecommunications for the decade."
Unfortunately, no one in Washington, under heavy pressure from industry lobbyists, appears ready to answer that question. FCC Chairman William E. Kennard, for example, has adopted a timid, wait-and-see posture at a time when a firm public-interest response is needed. "... [W]ith competition and deregulation as our touchstones," Kennard explains, "the FCC has taken a hands-off deregulatory approach to the broadband market. We approved the AT&T-TCI deal without imposing conditions that they open their network." Such a policy, however, subjects the Internet to the same closed, cable-TV model that has limited programming diversity and consumer choice alike over the past two decades. Instead of establishing a framework in which ISPs are granted nondiscriminatory access to the new cable networks (not free access, but simply access under the same terms and conditions that the cable companies extend to their affiliated ISPs) the FCC chairman has lent his support to AT&T's monopolistic control of its extensive cable broadband holdings.
More ominous still is the new network architecture that cable operators are in the process of deploying, a system that will alter the very nature of online access for millions of Americans. A chilling glimpse of the broadband future was offered recently in a series of "white papers" released by Cisco Systems, one of the leading suppliers of broadband hardware and software. By Cisco's own admission, the new architecture will be rich in opportunities for cable operators to "optimize service profits," by granting preferential treatment to certain kinds of content, by limiting access to competitive traffic, and by "...segmenting the market and charging what the market will bear within each market segment."
Under such a system of monitored and preferential service, the Internet will no longer be the open, democratic system that we enjoy today. It will become, instead, much more of a "branded" environment, with premium service for certain products and certain customers, leaving others with second- and third-class transport (or possibly no carriage at all, for those who cannot afford even the lowest tier of sliding-scale fees). That's the kind of environment, moreover, that will only exacerbate the problem of spiraling campaign costs, as the "digital divide," affecting all segments of society, becomes more subtle and more pernicious than ever.
Among those likely to find themselves on the wrong side of that divide are nonprofit organizations, who will face even more obstacles in their attempts to address various public-interest issues online. So, too, will small businesses find it even more difficult to compete successfully in an environment in which the large media conglomerates exert even more control over online traffic. A number of Wall Street analysts, in fact, predict that a closed broadband Internet will threaten the future growth of our economy. The possibilities for democratic discourse, for educational opportunities, and for cultural expression will be greatly reduced in a delivery system that favors big business over small, e-commerce over e-democracy, and public relations over public service.
Free of such market-based constraints, on the other hand, the new broadband networks could bring a vast array of new programming to the home, at once extending the reach of the Internet (which currently serves only a third of the nation's households) and enhancing its content (much of which is currently constrained by the bandwidth limitations of dial-up modems). But this public-interest potential will not be realized without concerted action on a variety of fronts:
-
To educate the public about the nature of the emerging broadband landscape.
-
To support civic, educational, and cultural uses of the new media.
-
To evaluate the network architecture of the new system to prevent discriminatory handling of competitive or noncommercial content.
Only in this manner, with a systematic, cooperative assessment of the new broadband networks, can public-interest advocates hope to be heard amidst the towering voices of the telecommunications giants.
Cable Television
Cable Television: Television is still where most
Americans tune in for news and entertainment. Cable providers have
major obligations to serve the public interest because their services
are offered by means of public right-of-ways.
Broadcasters Ask FCC for Must-Carry
Broadcast Lobby’s Indecent Posture: Asking for Big Public Hand-out
April 26, 2004
Television broadcasters have their special-interest eyes on a political prize that will enrich the industry with tens of billions of dollars in new revenues. They are now political arm-twisting both the FCC and Congress to help achieve this goal. Once again, the public will be forced to bankroll a handful of big media companies, who will be guaranteed a secure economic future. And once again, the public--including children, families, and communities--will be left to pay the tab while getting nothing back in return.
Last week, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) held its annual convention in Las Vegas. Over the last decade, the NAB has used its political muscle to advance the interests of its handful of very powerful members, scoring victories worth hundreds of billions of dollars in federal legislation. It now has its sights on advancing a scheme that will turn every TV station into a “multi-channel” powerhouse, forcing cable (and ultimately satellite) operators to send these channels to every TV set in the U.S. It’s a classic flimflam operation, the digital-age equivalent of Willy Sutton robbing banks because “that’s where the money is.” The money today is in the digital spectrum, owned by the public, that broadcasters have been allowed to use freely. TV stations want to transform this public asset into a private, multi-channel, broadband bank account.
The con game is called “multicasting must-carry.” It’s the “endgame” of a ruse that the broadcast lobby and TV networks came up with twenty years ago. In the late 1980s, as a way of grabbing additional valuable spectrum (once called “public airwaves”) broadcasters launched a misinformation campaign claiming that the U.S. was falling behind Japan in rolling out high-definition TV (HDTV). They quickly had official Washington falling for that line. In the 1996 Telecommunications Act give-away to the media industry, broadcast TV stations scored a new chunk of valuable airwaves for free use in making the transition to digital broadcast. One of the key provisions of this act was to give broadcasters “flexibility” in how they used their new spectrum. Ultimately, that meant goodbye to the HDTV divide with Japan, and hello to finding ways to take this lobbying victory and make even more money with it
Broadcasters already knew, in fact, what they wanted to do (but hadn’t really told a clueless Congress). The broadcast TV industry has long understood that their future as an industry was in jeopardy. Cable is the dominant medium in television (reaching some 70 percent of all households). The key to TV’s future lies in the ability to send many channels to viewers, not just the single one that broadcasters can transmit today. TV’s business model will also require access to a set-top box for the delivery of video on demand and personalized advertising. Broadcasters recognize that unless they could use their political clout to gain greater control over cable, then the days of huge profit margins would eventually end.
So broadcasters now want the FCC to award them a new policy that would require cable systems to carry any channels they can transmit. Since the new digital spectrum each TV station has can be “sliced” into several channels, broadcasters want to “multicast.” Today’s single channel in one’s hometown will be able to send out six or more different signals. With multicast “carriage” on cable, each TV station owner will have ensured their financial viability in the broadband era.
Just how much is the multicasting of digital broadcast communications worth to stations? In her keynote speech to the NAB, Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina reminded broadcasters that “…instead of one stream coming out of your station, there will be six. It means that instead of having to compete on one program schedule--during prime time, when cable is at its best by being at its worst --you'll have six streams which allow you to do what you can't do right now: target programming for families or local communities, creating a whole new level of value and new revenue opportunities.”
And NAB chief lobbyist Eddie Fritts was clear that gaining access to cable for broadcasting’s new multiple channels was at the top of their agenda. He called on the FCC to award so-called multicasting must-carry, complaining that “our DTV and high definition signals are all dressed up with no place to go.”
Why should the FCC award this give-away to broadcasters? Because, as Fritts said, broadcasting is the public’s “local town square.” He boasted of how the industry serves communities while he derided the role of the Internet, asking, “…What has the Internet done for community service? How many kidnapped kids have been saved by a Web site?”
Fritts claimed that the broadcasting industry’s provision of such things as public service announcements was proof of how broadcasters serve the public interest, and hence worthy of more special-interest give-aways. He claimed that broadcaster efforts contributed more to the public “…than the top 100 foundations combined!” In defense of such claims, the NAB has launched a new “Reclaiming the Public Interest” PR effort to convince policymakers that broadcasters are serving their communities. But the campaign fails to inform the public about the real issues regarding digital TV and the broadcast lobby. It doesn’t acknowledge the gifts broadcasters have received from the American public, and it says nothing about how digital TV could serve the interests of children and communities, if public interest standards were enforced.
Multicasting must-carry will not provide the public with any real benefit, unless policies are first put in place to ensure that broadcasters must effectively serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” That promise, made back in 1934, must now be honored in the digital TV age. FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps have already vowed to do so. Will Commissioners Martin, Abernathy and Chairman Powell do the same, or will they once again promote broadcasters’ interests over the public’s?
Cable Act in Brief
Cable Act and Cable Choice
November 20, 2002
Washington, D.C.: On October 5, 1992, Congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, also known as The Cable Act.
The Cable Act was famous for regulating a number of issues including: prohibiting cable operators from re-transmitting the signal of a commercial television or radio station without the station's consent; requiring that a cable operator get permission from a broadcast station before cable programming can be aired on the broadcast spectrum; and requiring that cable operators must set aside up to a maximum of one-third of its channel capacity for local commercial television stations.
Lesser known is that the Cable Act also contained the "tier buy-through" rule, a provision that prohibits a cable operator from conditioning a subscriber's access to per channel or per program video programming on the purchase of any other tier other than the basic tier. In simpler terms, this means that cable operators could no longer force cable subscribers to purchase expanded or digital packages just to get access to premium channels such as HBO or Showtime. The provision applies to all cable systems, including those that are not subject to rate regulation. Cable systems that were technically incapable of letting subscribers buy only the basic tier and still have access to all pay services were given ten years to bring their systems into compliance.
October of 2002 was the ten-year deadline for cable systems to comply with the Cable Act. Now that the rule has taken effect, cable customers now have much more flexibility in choosing which channel or pricing packages they'd like to purchase. However, the rule allows customers to choose only premium stations such as HBO on an a la carte basis, not other satellite stations such as CNN or MTV.
But cable customers are still not getting a square deal. According to David Butler of the D.C.-based Consumers Union, cable operators should be able to offer a la carte for all channels and notes that cable rates have increased 45% since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the industry. Consumer advocates will continue to fight for such a provision.
Cable TV and the Future of Broadband
Cable TV and The Future of Broadband
The Set-Top Set-Up:
How the Cable Giants Plan to Steal the Internet
In the course of announcing his company's merger with Time Warner last January, AOL's Steve Case proclaimed the dawn of the Internet Century. And now, less than a year later, that promising era of high-speed online communications is about to give way to a pale facsimile--call it the "Set-Top Century"--in which a handful of cable system magnates will be allowed to define the online experience for millions of American households. In what amounts to a bait-and-switch operation of colossal proportions, the cable industry is poised to offer (with the impending blessings of federal regulators, it appears), a streamlined subset of the Internet, with absolutely no guarantee that its tradition of competition and openness will be preserved. We will be asked to trade the depth and diversity of the Internet, in short, for the speed and simplicity of new interactive television (ITV) implementations, and that's a deal that none of us should be forced to make.
If there's a silver lining to this dark cloud of ever-growing media concentration, it's that the technology itself remains a tremendously powerful tool. And even as millions of broadband cable subscribers are led down the walled-garden path of the new Internet Lite, the old Internet that has nourished more than 7,000 Internet service providers (ISPs) and generated some 2 billion web pages will endure. It may be harder to reach, and many of its sites will be overshadowed by the media conglomerates' online estates, but it will persist nevertheless. Thus it becomes our job--those of us committed to a diverse, democratic online media system--to continue the campaign for open, nondiscriminatory access to all broadband networks--cable and telephone, wired and wireless. In the process, we'll make sure that the Internet, "… the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, will continue to serve the public interest.
We made great strides in bringing the open-access issue to the forefront during the debates that surrounded the AOL-Time Warner merger. The principle of open access, at least, has been widely acknowledged. We need only to ensure now that it is administered in a meaningful fashion--not in back-room agreements among the fortunate few, but in the form of open interconnection and nondiscriminatory transport for all ISPs and content providers. And it must apply to all forms of Internet traffic, whether through PC modems, set-top boxes, or devices still to be invented.
David Isenberg, the former Bell Labs researcher who was present at the creation of the Internet, often refers to it as the ultimate "stupid" network, in that all of the intelligence and power reside at the end points, rather than in the middle. In this manner network users, rather than owners and operators, are able to decide what services they need and what content they want. Today, in contrast, cable giants like AT&T and AOL-TW are introducing broadband networks encumbered with "artificial intelligence"--namely, the power to discriminate between affiliated and competitive programming, to trap users in branded environments that offer only the illusion of choice, and to maximize profits through tiered levels of service. Rather than the open-ended network that has so effectively fostered competition, innovation, and diversity, many Americans will be treated instead to a proprietary, closed system, one that reduces Internet traffic to the same commodity status that prevented cable television from ever realizing its full potential.
Ironically, now that bandwidth constraints have been lifted, facilitating the online exchange of a wide variety of multimedia content, artificial constraints imposed by network operators raise the specter of new bottlenecks. Those organizations lacking sufficient commercial clout--and the noncommercial, public-interest sector in particular--will be especially affected by the new broadband environment, which is why an organized movement is needed now to maintain the openness and diversity of the Internet. At the same time that we are concerned with these architectural issues of control and closed access as the chief threats to the Internet, we are equally committed to formulating a vision for what the Internet can become in the broadband era. Making room for effective commercial competition is one key goal. Another is helping to foster the dot-commons, the electronic civic sector that is unlikely to be created--or to be sustained if it is established--through the play of market forces alone. We must ensure, in other words, that our travels through cyberspace remain unfettered, that they do not, in fact, become mere guided tours of cable operators' online holdings.
Comcast Has Narrow News Horizons
Cable to New Programmers: "We are the 'Gatekeepers,' so Drop Dead!"
Trade Articles Reveal that Opening for New Channels is as Large as "Eye of the Needle"
2 July 2004
As a new national debate emerges over the failure of U. S. television journalism to effectively report on key issues of concern--from the Iraq war to media ownership--it is time to turn our attention to the narrow programming landscape of cable television. Programmers who want to offer Americans with serious news channels, for example, or with services that provide for independent points of view, have no chance of emerging on the multi-channel dial (or the electronic program guide). Two recent cable industry trade magazine articles illustrate why it's time for Congress to "bust-up" the cable cabal that controls much of U.S. Television.
Cable conglomerate Comcast now controls the future of almost all potential new programmers. As CableWorld magazine recently reported, "Comcast has become the …kingmaker, with the power to make or break a digital network. Without a carriage commitment from Comcast, it is difficult for start-ups to raise the investment capital they need." And as the article also makes clear, Comcast is "not looking" to place any new channels on its systems.
According to the article, programmers that may pass Comcast's narrow programming interests have to accept a place on the cable's company new video-on-demand (VOD) system. Comcast has made a strategic decision to expand its VOD offerings, in part as a way to differentiate itself from direct broadcast satellite. So it wants to add VOD content instead of adding what it calls "linear" or full-time channels. That's why it's not surprising that in the article Comcast's Amy Banse, executive VP for programming investments, is quoted as saying that it is "next to impossible, if not impossible" to launch a linear channel these days.
It's also clear from the article that Comcast and the cable industry have made a political and economic decision that more network-like programming isn't necessary. According to Banse: "…with all of us offering 200-plus channels, there's plenty of content out there, and the subscriber simply doesn't want anything else to warrant charging them for that. So between those two facts, it makes it very difficult to launch anything, because it's tough to get eyeballs." Only by agreeing to a VOD distribution agreement with Comcast can an independent programmer hope to reach a significant number of cable households, and only then on terms that are advantageous to the cable operator.
How does Comcast evaluate whether a new service deserves any distribution? One programming executive says they "look at the size and type of the target audience and its attractiveness to advertisers.… Even if it's something that's of interest to a large target audience, that doesn't mean that it will make good television programming. You also look at the other content that's out there that's also serving this niche or audience." For Banse, four "specific criteria" must be met before Comcast will "invest" in and carry a programming service: "It needs to be unique to the channel lineup; it needs to be inexpensive to program; it needs to appeal to a specific demographic; and preferably that's a younger demographic, because it needs to make its money on advertising revenue as opposed to relying heavily on affiliate revenue."
Presumably, since Americans receive such "diverse" news as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Comcast would claim that the "market" for journalistic content is already covered. Or that because there are two African-American channels (controlled by conglomerates Viacom and Comcast itself), there is no need to ensure independently run services.
It's not Comcast alone that has a "No New Nets" sign. Cox Cable isn't interested in new channels either. That's because "…consumer appetites already have been sated for that kind of programming," according to its senior vice president of programming.
For a country founded on diversity of expression, the opening for new content is an ever-decreasing "eye of the needle," revealed one of cable's leading consultants for new channels in a recent Broadcasting & Cable article.
Given the hold that the gang of six media giants has over broadcast, cable, and satellite programming, and the lack of opportunity for real content diversity, it's time to address breaking up the TV oligopoly. If the country is to have a serious independent press and in order to foster a robust culture of ideas, breaking up big cable must be high on the policy agenda.
Comcast Media Merger Lobby Team
Connections to White House, DoD, Hill
Lorine D. Card: consultant (sister-in-law of White House chief of staff Andrew Card)
Victoria Clarke: former Ass’t Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under Donald Rumsfeld
Alfred Mottur: consultant (former senior telecommunications advisor to Sen. Ernest Hollings)
David Cohen: former aide to (now) Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell
Kerry Knott: former chief of staff to former House Majority Dick Armey and a Microsoft lobbyist
Melissa Maxfield: former head of Sen. Tom Daschle’s political action committee
Jessica Wallace: former senior advisor to Rep. Billy Tauzin (while he was chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee)
According to Comcast’s lead political operative, David Cohen, this lobbying team gives the company " … a lot of balance. Republican and Democrat, House and Senate, people who have relationships throughout Washington….”
Sources: “Rising Profile in D.C.: Comcast Bolsters Its Lobby Operation With Top Talent,” Multichannel News, Sept. 29, 2003; “Comcast’s Emergence as Titan Is Backed By a Powerful Lobby,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 13, 2004.
Comcast’s Merger Money: Which Politicians are Getting Contributions
$10,000-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)
$5,000-Sen. (and Commerce Chair) John McCain (R-AZ)
$5,000-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)
$5,000-House Telecommunications Subcommittee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI)
$5,000-House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Joe Barton (R-TX)
$5,000-House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member John Dingell (D-MI)
$200,000-plus to Bush-Cheney re-election campaign from Stephen Burke, president, Comcast Cable.
Comcast's PAC gave $599,372 to candidates in 2002 and $424,159 in 2003.
sources: "Watchdogs Target Comcast," TV Week, Feb. 16, 2004; Wall Street Journal , Feb. 13, 2004
Wall Street Rain-Makers: Firms Helping Comcast Further Concentrate Control Over the Media
Morgan Stanley (Paul Taubman. The company helped Time Warner Acquire Turner Broadcasting, Viacom take over CBS)
Quadrangle Group (Steven Rattner. Former journalist turned media dealmaker, represents the Sulzbergers, owner of the New York Times ).
J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. (Rob Kindler. He helped Viacom buy CBS and worked on the merger of AOL and Time Warner)
Felix Rohatyn (former Ambassador to France under Pres. Clinton)
Davis Polk & Wardwell (legal advisor. Helped Comcast Swallow AT&T Broadband)
DC Lobbying Firm: Brownstein, Hyatt and Farber (Washington power-brokers with high-level connections to Democrats and the GOP (including Gale Norton, the Secretary of the Interior)
Sources: The Deal , Feb. 16, 2004; AFX News Service; New York Magazine
Comcast Calls itself the "Broadband Distribution Leader"
It now controls (as of Feb. 2004):
21.5 million cable TV subscribers
5.3 broadband subscribers
7.2 million digital video customers
Comcast is the "Market Leader" in 8 of the top 10 U.S. markets, with 70 percent of subscribers in the top 20 U.S. markets, and operates in 22 of the top 25 markets.
Its programming interests include "E," Comcast Sports Net, G4, Golf Channel, Style, Outdoor Life, TV One, and Comcast-Spectacor.
Source: Comcast
Comcast Gets an "F" for Lack of Good Corporate Governance
The institutional watchdog group Corporate Library has given Comcast Holdings Corporation an "F" rating for the effectiveness of its board of directors. It also informed investors that as a result of the "F" rating, "...the weaknesses of the board contribute to a VERY HIGH degree of investment risk to this stock."
Corporate Library's company profile on Comcast notes the absence of "fully independent outside directors," and the lack of a "formal governance policy" and "effective CEO compensation practices." Its outside directors--who are supposed to be independent of the company--have strong links to Comcast and the cable industry. For example, Comcast president Brian Roberts' father--Ralph J. Roberts (a co-founder of the company)--is listed as an "outside" director. So too is Decker Anstrom, the former chief lobbyist for the cable industry (and now CEO of the company that runs cable's Weather Channel). Anstrom chairs the "compensation" committee of the board; Ralph Roberts is chair of the "executive" committee. CEO Brian Roberts, who received almost $10 million in compensation in salary and stock options, heads both the nominating and governance committees.
One Comcast board member, Julian A. Brodsky, also serves on the board of Rupert Murdoch's NDS corporation. The twelve-director board has a lone woman director. (The Walt Disney Co., which Comcast is trying to acquire, also received an "F" rating from the Corporate Library.)
Source: Corporate Profile: Comcast Holdings Corp. 2004 by The Corporate Library
Digital Destiny Campaign
In an effort to realize the full potential of broadband, the Center for Digital Democracy is launching a new project designed to stimulate citizen participation in the broadband revolution at the local level. Our task is to ensure that broadband serves citizenship as well as salesmanship, culture as well as commerce. By working together at the local level, we have the opportunity to shape our digital destiny.
Best Practices for Broadband
Best Practices of Public Interest Broadband
If you listen to the debates inside the beltway about broadband deployment, you might believe that the only parties involved are major media companies and a handful of consumer groups. And you'd be right - in Washington, DC. But in reality there are efforts going on all over the country, in fact all over the world, that aim to influence the shape and character of high-speed communications in very different ways. And you might be surprised to learn that many of these efforts are not simply focused on bottom lines and business plans. Instead, these efforts are being undertaken by individuals, community groups, nonprofits and local municipalities, and focus on the public interest benefits of the next generation Internet.
From municipal-owned broadband networks, to ad-hoc wireless access points, to community technology projects, there are grassroots efforts underway everywhere to harness the potential of high-speed communications for public purposes. These efforts are rooted in a broader vision for the Internet than the highly centralized and controlled model being espoused by major media companies. Instead, they share the spirit of community and public good that characterized the growth of the original dial-up Internet as an open communications platform supporting a diversity of content and applications.
To be sure, the news out of Washington is often dire when it comes to broadband. The FCC has made rulings that threaten to eliminate the diversity of service options that to-date has characterized the dial-up Internet, instead handing control over to a few cable and telephone media giants. Congress seems willing to follow suit, and the Bush administration continues to pay little to no attention to public interest concerns about the process. Still, the battle is not lost. While Washington is wooed by big money and empty promises, local communities are taking charge in the fight to preserve an open and nondiscriminatory high-speed Internet.
Such grassroots efforts can play a critical role in a multi-pronged resistance to big media's attempted takeover of the Internet. Yet so often the success of these projects goes unsung. Therefore, CDD offers the following collection of resources detailing just what's being done to preserve the public interest in the broadband Internet. Our hope is to provide models that can be adapted by other communities, while at the same time giving a face to the sorts of projects that may be threatened by the heavy handed strategies being deployed by large media companies.
If you have stories or links that you think should be added here, please send them to us through the Share Your Stories page.
Community Organizations:
At the grassroots level, groups are forming to ensure that all members of a community can benefit from emerging broadband technology. From community technology centers that provide public access points and technology classes to online communities created around social groups, these efforts are extending traditional social services to the broadband environment.
Grand Rapids Community Media Center
http://www.grcmc.org/
Local CMC dedicated to "building community through media, including facilitation of free high-speed Internet access."
Minnesota Council of Nonprofits: Nonprofit Broadband Initiative
http://www.mncn.org/broadband.htm
Minnesota organization promoting development of broadband applications for nonprofit use.
Community Broadband Workforce
http://216.194.92.236/CBW/index.html
Professional services organization designed to "help communities and regions 'Bridge the Digital Divide,' and achieve economic growth and job creation benefits from the Internet Economy."
Institutional Networks:
Institutional networks, or I-nets, are community systems specifically created to connect government agencies, schools and other public entities. They are usually high speed fiber optic networks that are operated separately from commercial cable and telephone systems. Often municipalities require construction of I-nets by cable companies in local franchise agreements, though at times the community itself builds the network through public-private partnerships.
King County I-Net
http://www.metrokc.gov/dias/its/i-net/
Fiber optic network carrying data, voice and video for public facilities in King County, Washington (Seattle), including schools, government agencies, public safety agencies, courts, public health facilities.
Pittsburgh I-Net
http://www.pgh-inet.org/
Serving schools, libraries, non-profit organizations and local government agencies.
Arlington County I-Net
http://www.co.arlington.va.us/dts/e-town/Arlington%20County%20Institutional%20Network%20(INET)_files/frame.htm#slide0001.htm
Greater Austin Area Telecommunications Network
http://www.gaatn.org/
Austin Texas institutional network built by a partnership of gvernment entities and universities.
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~quinn/GAATN.html Greater Boston Broadband Network
http://www.bnntv.org/gbbn/
Led by University of Mass with many partners.
http://www.cpcs.umb.edu/VISTA/gbbn.pdf Mt Hood Area Institutional Network
http://www.purveyor.com/pdxinet.htm
Serving Public, Educational, and Government Users with alternative high speed digital video, voice, and data services.
City of Tucson Institutional Network
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/it/transfer.html
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/it/inetplan.html#exec http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/it/inet2.html Cable Franchise Renewals
http://www.buskegroup.com/Outcomes_of_Recent_Cable_Franchise_Renewals__2002__v.3_.pdf
Municipal/Public Broadband Initiatives:
Many municipalities have found it efficient to build publicly-owned broadband networks to serve their communities. In many cases, these networks started out as control systems for local power grids, but have repurposed their excess bandwidth to offer cable television and high-speed Internet service to the public. Such municipal networks can provide much-needed competition for the major telephone and cable companies who have become infamous for their poor customer service and failure to upgrade their technology.
iProvo
http://www.iprovo.net/
Municipal broadband network under construction in Provo, Utah.
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07032003/business/72088.asp Glasgow EPB HomeLAN
http://www.glasgow-ky.com/lan/
Service of Glasgow, Kentucky Electric Plant Board offering cable television and high-speed Internet access to local residents.
Canarie Inc.
http://www.canarie.ca/
Canadian national organization that promotes broadband network and application deployment.
Internet2
http://www.internet2.edu/
Government/university/industry partnership to develop next-generation broadband network for research and eventual public use.
Link Michigan Project
http://www.michigan.gov/treasury/0,1607,7-121-1750_19156_24979-69316--,00.html
Project of the Michigan Department of Treasury intended to boost broadband deployment in the state.
Research Resources:
While mainstream media largely focuses its attention on the broadband policy debates going on inside the beltway, there are many groups keeping track of the local efforts to promote high-speed connectivity that serves the public interest. These websites not only offer the latest news in this area, but also help local leaders share models for success.
Community Broadband Networks
http://communityfiber.blogspot.com/
A blog site devoted to news about community broadband networks.
FreeNetworks.org
http://www.freenetworks.org/
Listserve promoting open spectrum policy that facilitates development of wireless networking technology.
Wi-Fi Networking News
http://wifinetnews.com/
Daily news digest site covering wi-fi and technical standards.
BroadbandReports.com – Broadband Politics and Legislation Forum
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6502431~root=politics~start=22~mode=flat
Analysys
http://www.analysys.com/default_acl.asp?Mode=article&iLeftArticle=1071&m=&n=
Survey of state broadband inititiatives
National Regulatory Research Institute
http://www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/programs/telcom/broadbandquery.php
Database of community connectivity info.
American Public Power Association: Community Broadband
http://www.appanet.org/legislativeregulatory/broadband/index.cfm
Power provider assocaition providing information on public broadband infrastructure projects.
Wi-Fi Projects:
While cable and telephone companies resist deploying truly open and nondiscriminatory broadband networks, many people are finding a way around the traditional "last mile" bottleneck. Wireless technology allows users to access the Internet at high speeds and with the added benefit of mobility. With technology that is both readily available and inexpensive, many local groups are knitting together wireless access points into community-wide Internet service areas.
NYCWireless
http://www.nycwireless.net/
Organization providing free public wireless Internet service to users in public spaces throughout the New York City metro area.
Seattle Wireless
http://www.seattlewireless.net/
Nonprofit organization working to develop a free wireless broadband Community Wireless Network (CWN) in the Seattle region.
Bay Area Wireless Users Group
http://www.bawug.org/
Nonprofit promoting wireless use in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, including the Bay Area Research Wireless Network.
http://www.svbizink.com/headlines/article.asp?aid=4825&iid=311 Portland Personal Telco Project
http://www.personaltelco.net/static/
Nonprofit organization promoting wireless community networks in Portland, Ore.
NoCatNet
http://nocat.net/
Nonprofit organization working to build a community supported 802.11b wireless network in Sonoma County, CA.
Boingo Wireless
http://www.boingo.com/
National broadband wireless service being offered in a variety of locations, including airports, hotels and cafes.
Declaration of Digital Democracy
Declaration of Digital Democracy
Choice. Competition. Diversity. Equal Opportunity. Free Expression. Equitable Access. Self-Determination. These are among the basic values that must govern our communications systems in the digital age. The digital media environment must accommodate a competitive array of commercial and noncommercial services that meet citizen and community needs, reflect our diverse society, and ensure that all of us share in the abundance that the digital revolution has brought forth. While there will always be room for a growing range of products and services designed to tap the commercial potential of telecommunications (everything from long-distance calling plans to premium cable channels), these must be offered in a fair and equitable manner.
Above all, as traditional communications systems converge onto a unified broadband network, communities should have a voice in how that network is constructed and operated. Citizens and local governments have the right to, and indeed must participate in the decision-making process to determine how essential communications resources (including production, transmission, and access to facilities and services) can best serve public needs. Specific strategies may differ from community to community, but the principles that guide open, diverse and democratic media are likely to remain the same. A "Declaration of Digital Democracy," then, includes the following ten citizen rights:
- Right to "Open Access" to the Internet: The broadband networks of tomorrow should be as open and as competitive as the dial-up Internet of today, with a full choice of access providers, content, and services. Not only should citizens have the ability to choose the ISP of their preference, but ISPs should be able to operate freely without any artificial restrictions on the character or quality of service imposed by network owners.
- Right to unrestricted communication: The principle of nondiscriminatory communication has long governed our telephone system and the Internet itself, allowing any party to transmit any message to any other party without interference by the network operator. This principle of free expression should be extended to broadband as well. High-speed Internet users should be allowed unimpeded communications with any network device, use of any lawful service, and transmission of any data. Governmental entities should insist that their information and services be accessible on multiple platforms and in multiple formats, including open source and no-cost platforms and formats.
- Right to robust community networks: As communications technologies advance and increase in capacity (bringing more elaborate digital cable systems into our homes, for example), community networking resources should progress accordingly. Such resources include high-speed institutional networks that link municipal agencies and community organizations, streaming-media servers that deliver noncommercial programming, and next-generation public-, education-, and government-access channels that bring two-way communications to all segments of the community.
- Right to a "Digital Television Dividend": The impending transition to digital television will vastly increase the power of stations to deliver new streams of simultaneous programming. A portion of this multicasting capability should be used to bring new public-service offerings (e.g., children's, educational, cultural, and public affairs programming). Revenues derived from the auction of spectrum surrendered by the stations once the transition to digital broadcast is complete, moreover, should be used to support such public service programming.
- Right to online privacy: As new forms of interactive media, e-commerce, and video-on-demand make their appearance, so too must new forms of privacy protection be implemented as safeguards against consumer profiling and monitoring. Citizens should have communications systems that are secure from outside monitoring and manipulation, and protected by strong government policies for privacy and corporate accountability. Freedom to enjoy creative works anonymously should be preserved.
- Right to a "Spectrum Commons": New wireless technologies make unlicensed uses of the radio spectrum possible, services that should be open to all users on an equal basis (as distinguished from the current system that grants exclusive licenses to specific frequencies). A portion of such a "spectrum commons" should be devoted to noncommercial, public interest applications and services, and supported by auctions in those frequencies in which exclusive licenses are still deemed advisable.
- Right to unshackled hardware: Computers, recording and playback equipment, and other digital devices should not be burdened with technological encumbrances designed to prevent users from employing their equipment in any manner they see fit. Nor should set-top boxes, cable modems, and other end-user equipment be deployed by network owners and service providers in our homes without being fully open to user configuration and operation.
- Right to unfettered software: Copy protection and related digital rights management schemes and access-control technologies must not be permitted to interfere with fair use and other legally protected rights of consumers and citizens, or to expand the scope of the copyright holder's control beyond the limits established in the Copyright Act. Copyright rules should strike a fair and productive balance between the rights of creators and those of citizens and future innovators.
- Right to a "Dot-Commons": Just as we have set aside public space (e.g., parks, beaches, town squares) in the real-world landscape, so must we protect and promote a portion of the online world for noncommercial speech and public interest applications. Such a virtual commons will play host to programming that ranges from community information resources and educational projects to cultural expression and social services - the building blocks of democracy that are not always well served by the commercial marketplace.
- Right to digital universal service: The longstanding principle of ensuring that all citizens have access to basic telephone service must now be expanded to include advanced telecommunications services as well, reaching those in low-income, rural, insular, and high-cost areas in particular.
Strategies for Broadband Democracy at the Local Level
Strategies for Broadband Democracy at the Local Level
The broadband revolution--still in its infancy but offering the potential for a new, more democratic media system--has arrived. Roughly a third of all US homes connected to the Internet now enjoy high-speed access, and that number is growing daily. So, too, are the speeds at which users connect to the Internet increasing, although we have yet to see the kinds of robust residential networks (operating at 10 megabits per second and above) that will readily permit multimedia material to flow in both directions. But in order for that potential to be realized, community leaders, media activists, and representatives of the nonprofit sector must become more actively engaged in the broadband build-out process. Without question, the new high-speed networks are headed our way, but whether they simply deliver more of the same conglomerate culture, or whether they open new opportunities for civic discourse and cultural expression, will depend on the actions that communities take today.
In an effort to foster a collective envisioning of this new, more participatory communications environment, one that accommodates a full range of civic, educational, and cultural expression, the Center for Digital Democracy has launched its Digital Destiny Campaign. Combining activism at the local level with a range of informative online resources, the campaign provides the tools that communities need to harness the power of broadband--via cable, DSL, or wireless networks, and including digital television--with content, applications, and services that reflect the diversity of our culture rather than the marketing formulas of a handful of conglomerates.
Given the tight control over broadband networks wielded by cable and phone company monopolies, unfortunately, there is no guarantee that any of the new online resources will extend beyond the usual market-driven fare. However dazzling on-demand entertainment, sports, and gaming might be, we need to ensure the availability of public-interest online programming as well, including content produced by individuals and community groups themselves. Just as we have set aside space in the natural environment for public parks and beaches, and just as we have designated portions of the broadcast spectrum for noncommercial and educational use, so must we ensure that the new broadband infrastructure similarly accommodates applications and content designed to meet civic, social, and cultural needs. Communities must be informed of the public-interest options they should have in the new broadband marketplace, and encouraged to take part in the decision-making process surrounding the deployment of broadband and digital television platforms.
The Digital Destiny project addresses this need in six distinct ways:
-
Broadband Assessment: Surveying the existing and emerging new-media infrastructure (cable, DSL, wireless, and digital TV) to determine the prospects for public-interest, noncommercial, and minority programming.
-
Citizen Access: Exploring existing opportunities for access to facilities and training, highlighting those projects and organizations that promote media democracy, and working to expand access to the new digital tools of media production and distribution.
-
Policy Engagement: Fostering citizen and community involvement in the regulatory and policy making process that will define the ground rules of broadband deployment.
-
Collaboration: Taking stock of existing public-service programming projects, and exploring opportunities to pool these resources in a new "information commons."
-
Support Structures: Promoting public, private, and in-kind support of noncommercial broadband content and delivery.
-
Diversity of Viewpoint: Analyzing the local media landscape--who owns what?--and assessing opportunities for minority, independent, and alternative voices to be heard.
With the widespread deployment of high-speed networks, the broadband revolution is underway. In the process, there will be any number of efforts to exploit the commercial potential of the high-speed Internet. Our task is to ensure that broadband serves as effectively as it sells, fostering two-way, interactive applications. By working together at the local level, assessing the broadband infrastructure for its potential to serve the public interest, and building new alliances to ensure such service, we have the opportunity to shape our digital destiny.
Broadband Assessment
Surveying the existing and emerging new-media infrastructure (cable, DSL, wireless, and digital TV) to determine the prospects for public-interest, noncommercial, and minority programming.
The technical specifications can be daunting initially, but the basic contours of the broadband landscape (featuring fast, always-on connections that facilitate the delivery of a wide range of multimedia content) can be grasped fairly quickly. Invariably, the various digital platforms are capable of delivering much more than they currently offer--five channels or more of simultaneous programing by a single DTV station, for example, or high-speed institutional networks (I-nets) linking municipal agencies and community organizations. Once we grasp the vast dimensions of the broadband revolution, and the potential of new technologies therein to serve community as well as purely commercial interests, we will be able to define a new generation of public-service programing--everything from expanded PEG (public, government, and government) access channels to public-access streaming-media servers for all manner of noncommercial expression. CDD has prepared some basic material on the broadband revolution, including
- Broadband Primer
- 5 Questions on Broadband's Future
- Neither Worldly nor Wide: How Broadband Systems will Narrow the Net
- Broadband Bill of Rights
But there are also a number of other sources of useful technical information:
- The Content Village is a "new service funded under the European Community 'eContent' programme--a market oriented programme which aims to support the production, use and distribution of European digital content and to promote linguistic and cultural diversity on the global networks." It's an enormous site, full of information about and links to broadband projects worldwide.
- CED, Communications Engineering & Design, which bills itself as "the premier magazine of broadband technology," offers extensive resources on all aspects of broadband.
- Intel's Broadband Basics, once you get past all the Pentium 4 plugs, offers a fair amount of solid information on broadband, although Intel's vision for music, video, and gaming, not surprisingly, is decidedly commercial.
- The Intelligent Community Forum, a "special interest group within the World Teleport Association that focuses on the uses of broadband technology for economic development by communities," includes a useful discussion of "intelligent communities," those that recognize "communications bandwidth as the new essential utility."
- DesignNine, a technology consulting firm, specializes in broadband planning and development and offers downloadable one-page handouts suitable for community meetings and discussions of community technology.
- Cable-Modem.net's Streaming Media page offers background information on streaming media, links to software vendors and programmers, and a streaming media FAQ.
- CATVCyberLab is a nuts-and-bolts compendium of information on broadband via cable modems, including links to leading commercial broadband sites.
- TechNet's Broadband Primer offers a brief overview of the topic, including information on broadband applications in other countries.
- CNET's Insider's Guide to DSL seems to imply that there are more residential DSL options than there really are, but the introductory material is both clear and concise.
- Broadband Reports may be overkill for more casual observers of the field, but its forum for user reports from the field, reviewing and rating various broadband providers around the country, doesn't pull any punches.
- NetworkWorld's Net.Worker Research: DSL is an extensive collection of online resources on the phone companies' broadband offerings.
- Wireless Broadband, a Cable Datacom News report, provides a useful overview of a technology that, for all of its promise, remains far behind cable and DSL in the broadband sweepstakes.
- WirelessNYC is one of a number of community organizations around the country working to create public-access Internet "hot spots" for Wi-Fi networks, and its web site includes a number of informational resources on this growing movement.
- PBS Digital Television, in addition to listing the current DTV programs that the vast majority of Americans cannot yet receive (at least not in their high-definition splendor), also provides a good overview of this still-emerging technology. PBS also offers more detailed technical information about DTV.
- APTS, the Association of Public Television Stations, maintains a PTV and Broadband page that is full of information on the transition to the high-speed Internet. Also notable on the APTS site is its Digital Services and Planning page, which includes information on the pubcasters' efforts to make the transition to the new digital platform.
- The Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA), a "nonprofit corporation formed to create specification(s) that define an interoperable implementation for streaming rich media (video, audio and associated data) over Internet Protocol (IP) networks," (and whose members include AOL Time Warner, IBM, and Sony as well as academic institutions), offers online resources of interest to content producers and distributors alike.
- DTV Zone, a joint production of the National Association of Broadcasters and the Consumer Electronics Association, is full of basic information in addition to a lot of DTV hype.
Citizen Access
Exploring existing opportunities for access to facilities and training, highlighting those projects and organizations that promote media democracy, and working to expand access to the new digital tools of media production and distribution.
Especially as the broadband revolution creates a new version of the digital divide--separating those with premium service who travel in the fast lanes of telecommunications from those who remain stuck in the Internet's dial-up on-ramps--it will be important to nurture and celebrate those organizations and projects striving to share more broadly some of the wealth of the new-media technologies. Among the model public access projects around the country, ranging from PEG operations to online communities to service organizations, are the following:
- Grand Rapids Community Media Center has long been a leader in the field, a media access and training center that also hosts a number of nonprofit affiliates: GRTV, the public-access cable channel; WYCE, the listener-supported community radio station; the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy, a media literacy research center and media watchdog organization; GrandNet, a nonprofit technical assistance program serving other nonprofits in the region; and the Grand Community, an online gathering place.
- Chicago Access Network Television, representing the "P" in PEG-access cable channels, offers training and access to no less than five community-oriented channels, "a public space where Chicagoans can discuss issues of local concern, promote health, educational and economic resources in the community, and celebrate local talent and initiatives."
- SFGTV, the government-access channel in San Francisco that has been broadcasting since 1993, offers 24-hour programming that includes gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Board of Supervisors' meetings and coverage of other governmental meetings and events, as well as municipal information and public service announcements. In addition to its television programming, SFGTV also maintains an online archive of selected meetings that have occurred during the past 90 days, available as streaming video to PC users anywhere.
- Butte College TV, based in tiny Oroville, Calif., is nevertheless a full-service educational broadcaster, offering distance learning courses online, through local cable systems, and at remote centers in Chico and Orland, Calif.; media services to three Butte College campuses; tele-courses for college credit through the PBS Adult Learning Service; and online streaming video presentations of selected BCTV programming.
- Blacksburg Electronic Village is one of the oldest and strongest of the online communities (in this instance linked to a highly wired college town in Virginia), in which most of the content is generated by local individuals and organizations.
- Community Technology Centers Network (CTCNet), is a network of over a thousand independent technology access centers that provide a variety of services in their commitment to "a society in which all people are equitably empowered by technology skills and usage."
- The Association for Community Networking serves the online community movement with a variety of resources, including a recently added broadband and wireless section of its web site.
- Contentbank, a project of The Children's Partnership (TCP), is "designed to spur the development of needed Internet content for low-income communities," with best practices, online tools, and other resources, including the TCP's recent report on the actual programming that is needed on the other side of the digital divide, "The Search for High-Quality Online Content for Low-Income and Underserved Communities: Evaluating and Producing What's Needed." (PDF)
- CTCNet's Center Start-Up Manual offers extensive information and tools for those seeking to establish a community technology center. A companion document, the Operations Toolkit, was developed to give these centers "a wide array of templates, best practices, and forms currently used in the field."
Additionally, CDD's resource page on the Broadband Regulatory Environment offers links to sources of information on the rules that govern the deployment of high-speed networks.
Policy Engagement
Fostering citizen and community involvement in the regulatory and policy making process that will define the groundrules of broadband deployment.
The following organizations and sites provide useful information, examples, and ideas concerning the management of telecomunications resources in the public interest:
- Alliance for Community Media's Public Policy Information page includes archived monthly updates, issue profiles, PEG-access talking points, and information on state public utility commissions, the FCC, and relevant congressional committtees.
- Media Access Project's Broadband/Open Access pages include background information on the issues at hand, including MAP's extensive legal and FCC filings, and links to policy papers and other resources online.
- Consumer Federation of America's Telecommunications ? Phone, Cable, Internet pages include an extensive collection of press releases, studies, brochures, congressional testimony, FCC filings, and related material.
- The law firm of Miller and Van Eaton, cable and telecommunications attorneys for local governemt, makes a number of online resources available, including, most recently, articles on public rights-of-way, as well as an archive of articles on various telecom policy issues.
- The Buske Group, tel
Brand X Decision: Even the opponents in the case of FCC v. Brand X Internet Services, now under review at the Supreme Court, agree on one thing: "This battle is over the future of the Internet," as FCC Commissioner Michael Copps expressed it. At stake is whether the broadband Internet will preserve the dial-up Internet's longstanding open, diverse traditions, or whether it will evolve into something much closer to the closed platform of multichannel video. 
Digital Destiny Campaign: With the widespread deployment of high-speed networks, the broadband revolution is underway. In the process, there will be any number of efforts to exploit the commercial potential of the high-speed Internet. Our task is to ensure that broadband serves as effectively as it sells, fostering two-way, interactive applications. By working together at the local level, assessing the broadband infrastructure for its potential to serve the public interest, and building new alliances to ensure such service, we have the opportunity to shape our digital destiny. 
