In an uncharacteristic bit of theater, the Social Science Research Council has released a new report on Media Piracy in Emerging Economies with a Consumers Dilemma. Come from a higher-income country? No free report for you!

 ***

From the Social Science Research Council Blog:

***

Not  unexpectedly, our Consumers Dilemma license for the report has generated some controversy.  To recap, the CD license creates different paths to acquiring the report: first, we have an IP address geolocator that sends visitors from high income countries toward an $8 paywall when they download the report;  all other resolvable IP addresses get free access.

Criticism so far has taken two general forms:

1)  That we are being unfair in constraining access in high-income countries by setting an $8 pay wall.  This  divides further into what I’ll call a ‘CC left’ position, which thinks the report should be Creative Commons-licensed (and therefore free to everyone), and a ‘Grumpy Right’ position which appears to just resent being asked to pay $8 when others are getting it for free.

2) The view that the license is cheap theater unworthy of the scientific purpose of the study.  Since this complaint is underspecified so far, I’ll assume it includes 1 but is mostly about the commercial reader license, which gets read as juvenile sticking it to the man.

Maybe some clarification is in order here. The reader is faced with a dilemma: pay the legal price, acquire it through pirate channels, or don’t bother with it.  In most of the countries we’ve studied in this report, the results of this calculation with respect to DVDs, music, and software are strikingly consistent.  Media goods are highly desired, exorbitantly priced with respect to local incomes, and freely available through pirate channels.   High rates of piracy and tiny legal markets are the result. We’ve written 400+ pages about this dysfunctional form of globalization and its causes.

The resulting consumers dilemma is a ubiquitous experience in medium and low-income countries but one that confronts the American or European reader much less frequently and with much less intensity.  The global market is made for those consumers.  It is priced and distributed for them. 

The Consumers Dilemma license is a way of reversing that equation and, in the most minor ways,  requiring an explicit engagement with it.  Among the surreal aspects, that simple choice can subject you to crushing civil and criminal penalties, but you can rest easy knowing that only very rare, arbitrary examples will be made (and none in our case).  Now that’s theater.  Our license has a theatrical side, to be sure, but it also stays true to the experiences  documented in the report.  Those experiences–the personal choices and the market and price structure that informs them–are the report’s primary subject.

(* Go here if the resolution of your dilemma is to pay the $8 for the report).

Two new videos: 1 from Reel Grrls in Seattle on this year's Academy Awards spectacle and another from Albuquerque's Media Literacy Project on overpriced vocational schools that exploit young job seekers. 

The Greenlining Institute presents “Mapping Our Future: Drawing Lines that Matter!” – a 5 minute video about California Redistricting in 2011 and what’s at stake for communities of color. Redistricting - the process of re-drawing state election districts - is one of the most important political processes happening in 2011. It will determine whether your community has a voice in government for the next 10 years!  This is your chance to get involved.

As part of the Greenlinging Institute's state-wide civic engagement campaign to ensure that California's low-income communities and communities of color are heard as decisions are being made, you are invited to join in on one of the upcoming community meetings. More information available via the Greenlining Institute Facebook page.

The Media Freedom Foundation's 2011 Censored is out with the 25 most under-reported stories of 2010. Please support the work of Project Censored and buy a copy today!

MA member Jonathan Nack recorded this video of the foreclosure protest that disrupted the annual Wells Fargo Shareholders Meeting for over an hour earlier this month. 

KPFA Radio, has received complaints from 3 Berkeley City Council members and 6 workers on two different incidents of problematic coverage in a week on the daily hour-long statewide broadcast of the Pacifica Evening News. 

The first complaint was from by Berkeley City Council members Linda Maio, Kriss Worthington and Laurie Capitelli on a story on a council resolution asking all parties involved in the station's contentious November layoff of 2 employees to negotiate in good faith with each other.

Councilmember Linda Maio asked for an on-air correction on February 10th: (excerpted)

Below is a transcript of Aileen Alfandary's characterization of the Council's vote and, by extension, the Council's sentiments.... The Council, in its vote, did not take sides. My vote was not "prompted" by the layoffs. Kriss's wasn't, Laurie's wasn't. Kriss, you will recall, wanted to add more specific language that we were neutral. We thought that went without saying but I can see now it was well advised. I will do what I can, through messages to my own friend and constituent lists, to correctly convey my own position.

Councilmember Laurie Capitelli added on February 11th: (excerpted)

I strongly concur with Linda's concerns. The council vote was a message to all sides in the dispute to move forward with mediation hopefully starting with fresh eyes and a true desire to get past the events of the last several months.

A second complaint was filed on February 10th by six workers about a news feature  on an FPPC volation by one of the station's unpaid staff members. The "open letter" stated: (excerpted) Airing a personal attack to bolster a station turf war is unacceptable. There are too many authentic and important news stories stories waiting to be told.

Media Alliance is not aware of any direct response to either complaint from the KPFA news department.

MA's director sits on the KPFA and Pacifica Foundation board of directors.

The Alliance for Community Media's former director of Information and Organizing Services Rob McCausland provides these illuminating maps in a survey of the landscape of community television across the United States, 

Cablecasting Meetings of Local Governments: Cities of More Than 100,000 Residents

Mapping United States Educational Access Television Providers

Nonprofit and Government-Managed Community Access Channels

Get a visceral feel at the range of what we stand to lose if we don't protect the hard-earned channels, facilities and equipments that cable companies were forced to give back to local communities. 

Like the B-52's? Metallica? The White Stripes?

You might have never heard of them if not for KUSF, the venerable San Francisco college radio station that first played their music.

College radio is part of the diverse package of community media voices around the country that with spit-and-glue budgets, volunteer energy and a handful of overworked staff, keep bits of the television and radio waves open to the public, while training millions of young people in technology and how to use it.

These do-it-yourself outlets, which have survived for decades with an open door policy, often feature unique and eclectic formats inspired by the passions and talents of the surrounding community. At the University of San Francisco for the past thirty years, that has often meant the city's flourishing and influential music scene, one of the most vital in the country.

KUSF hasn't gone unnoticed. Besides a lofty alumni list of musical talent that later became household names, KUSF also broadcast public affairs programming in 9 different languages, weekly broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera and other random niches rarely served by larger broadcasters, and received commendations from a hit parade of local and national institutions including the United States Senate, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, American Women in Radio and Television, The National Association of College Broadcasters, The United Way, the San Francisco Weekly, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and SF mayors Willie Brown, Jr. and Dianne Feinstein,

Sounds like a community media success story.

But KUSF broadcast for the last time on January 18, 2011. Howard Ryan, a former DJ, describes the events of that day:

"I turned around to see Trista Bernasconi, KUSF Program Director, standing in the doorway of the studio. She asked me to step outside, and looked upset. I went over and she told me: This is the hardest thing I've ever had to do. The station has been sold, and I have to turn the transmitter off. I looked behind me into Studio A and the signal was already gone as my record continued to play silently on Turntable One."

I could end this story in the most conventional of ways: large corporation buys scrappy but financially challenged community institution and adds it to growing pile of investments. We've all seen that play out. Corporate media consolidation is not an untold tale.

But what happened to KUSF and Rice University station KTRU and about two dozen other college radio stations in the last decade wasn't a corporate takeover. Their licenses were absorbed into public media or NPR, assisted by the public media financial leveraging firm Public Radio Capital.

Public Radio Capital has been around for about a decade, an initiative arising from the Station Resource Group. A planning document left up on the net drew my attention with a sentence it contained:

"With virtually all FM channels in well-populated areas already assigned, the only option is to obtain outlets from those who already have them, including commercial, religious, and educational broadcasters outside the public radio system."

Educational broadcasters outside the public radio system include a large variety of college-based and community-based stations that criss-cross the country, including the 5-station and 150-affiliate Pacifica Radio Network.

Every year, the public and community media family sing kumbaya at annual conferences like the National Federation for Community Broadcasters or the bi-annual National Conference on Media Reform, where independent, alternative, community-based and public interest media are saluted for their roles as antidotes to the lack of credibility of the commercial and corporately-owned networks, the cable giants and the radio empires of Clear Channel, Infinity and Entercom.

Seemingly united around shared values of localism and diversity, one hates to think that behind the solidarity is a plan for the long-term absorption of all licenses outside the master ship.

At this time, when public media financing is facing serious challenges in Washington, and all hands on deck are needed to help preserve what little public interest media we have, perhaps we need to redefine the private financing needs as Community Radio Capital and the challenge as leveraging the financial resources to keep educational and community-based broadcasters, NPR-affiliated or not, right where they are, servicing their unique neighborhoods and developing formats and programming priorities that are as varied and diverse as the local places they inhabit.

After all, if there's a million channels and they're all playing the same thing all day, what have we gained?

Somebody's got to take a chance with the B-52's.

(Media Alliance webinars coming soon! We were ready to announce the lineup and then feel victim to capitalist acquisition as our platform of choice was swallowed up by Salesforce. We're researching other open source options).

The latest buzz in education is the growth of online learning communities to address educational access. Through online offerings, education can be more affordable and have the capability to reach communities that otherwise couldn’t access quality institutions. Concurrently, as more students and educators move towards online learning as an alternative, issues of equality are emerging. The question arises, how can online learning close the educational access gap if there is still a great digital divide in low-income communities in the US and around the world.

Increased Enrollment: 

There is no doubt that instructional online learning is increasing. In their 2010 Class Differences: Online Education in the United States report, I. Elaine Allen, Ph.D. and Jeff Seaman, Ph.D. (Babson College) show that “twenty-one percent growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds the less than two percent growth of the overall higher education student population.” This growth proves that the option for online learning is becoming more mainstream and a serious consideration when making decisions about one’s education.

The report also states, “Three-quarters of institutions report the economic downturn has increased demand for online courses and programs.” Implying that online learning could have a positive impact on the economy by offering alternative ways for people to return to school, improve their skill base, and in turn feed these higher-level skills back into the workplace. However, who are the students able to take advantage of this opportunity? Is the population most gravely impacted by the economy unable to access these online courses and programs.

Access and connectivity:

According to the International Telecommunication Union, the proportion of households with Internet access at home in the US in 2009 was: 68.89% (rural 63.40%, urban 70.01%). While this percentage is high, it still means that 30% of the population cannot access online learning opportunities in their homes which is where most of these type of opportunities occur.

The majority of online learning platforms require a computer with a fast processor and newer operating system. In addition there is the issue of Internet access. Often there is also some type of video component to accompany a course, which requires a stronger connection to stream content as well as multi-media plugins like Flash, Java, etc. In some cases, platforms offer materials in downloadable form but this still requires online access and downloading the materials to a personal computer. There may also be software that requires downloading as well, or operating systems that are not compatible.

This is all to say that online learning platforms require much more than just having access to a computer. It usually means a sweep of your system to insure you have the correct software and plug-ins, a high-speed connection, and a high performing machine. So, even if people have computers they may not have machines that can handle what online courses require.

Confidence:

In addition, if exposure to computer use is limited, experience and skill levels are also limited. Therefore, confidence in seeking online learning opportunities can be low. Imagine how someone with limited computer skills would react if they saw a list of system requirements that included PHP 4.3.0 or higher or MySQL 3.23.0 or greater. Even a fairly tech savvy person can find those types of requirements intimidating. So, how can educators and content providers expect a population who has little-to-no experience with computers to embrace online learning offerings?

Addressing access:

Currently, there is a pilot program in US public schools attempting to address the issues of access and confidence among students and their parents. The Connected Learning program is currently rolling out its first stage in New York and Los Angeles. The program provides desktop computers for a number of 6^th grade students to improve the classroom to home connection. The computers come equipped with a number of software programs and offer a medium speed Internet connection for free (a broadband connection is also available at a discounted monthly price). After the two-year pilot program, teachers will be encouraged to continue to integrate the software and online connection into classroom and home learning environments.

“This as an opportunity to not only bridge the digital divide, but also support teachers to extend learning beyond the four walls of the classroom,” says Daniel Storchan, Ed-Tech Consultancy Director at AUSSIE Digital School Solution, Professional Development provider and grant partner. “There is a huge paradigm shift happening today in which educators are now recognizing the need to equip young people with the tools to successfully navigate online spaces as responsible digital citizens.”

By the end of a two-year period, the grant partners in New York City will work in 100 middle schools and there will be computers in 18,500 households which did not have them before. Beyond reaching the program’s 6th graders, parents and siblings will also have access to a resource that could bring education into their homes.

This is a small step towards closing the digital divide but one that will provide a  window into advantages and hurdles in introducing new technology and equipment to a population that has otherwise had limited exposure.

Conclusion:

As a solution to tackling access to education for an entire population, online learning has a long road ahead. But there are strategic steps that educational and content providers can take now to begin to widen the spectrum of participants.

When developing online learning systems and products, content should be short and sweet, have small file sizes and downloading options. There should be limited system requirements and no need to download or update any software.

The emphasis should be placed on the quality of content and not the bells and whistles of the platform. Simplicity will be the key ingredient in bridging the digital divide and one that will ensure a sustainable and effective approach to creating accessible educational tools for all.

As the situation in Japan goes from bad to worse, Pacifica Radio provided a comprehensive look at our energy future in the wake of Fukushima.

Listen to the 5-station collaborative coverage from the community radio network. 

(Abby Martin is a Bay Area based citizen journalist and filmmaker - and sometimes Media Alliance volunteer).

Naomi Wolf's book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, argues that there are ten steps common to every state that has made the transition into fascism. One step is the targeting of key individuals or demographics: artists, academics, activists, civil servants, gays, Jews; the public blacklisting of those who don't tow the party line. Another move towards fascism is the control over the press—all dictatorships and would-be dictators target journalists and make sweeping media reforms to increase their control and their ability to censor information.

Her book conveys the inklings of fascism here in America, but in a globalized society, the West sets the tone for policy and culture that influences the rest of the world. As Orwellian rhetoric becomes commonplace-- wars are being waged to maintain "peace" and draconian bills that curtail civil liberties are being litigated as "patriotic"—countries worldwide have been enacting Wolf's ten steps, some with more haste than others.

After decades of post-Soviet, post-Holocaust political and economic strife, Hungary is starting to embody Orwell's dystopian portrayal. This April, Fidesz, Hungary's center-right conservative party, won 2/3rds control over Parliament, putting the conservative party in power for the first time since World War II. Moreover, Fidesz now controls 22 out of the 23 major cities in the country. This complete takeover by one party is significant, because the Hungarian Constitution can be effectively changed with a 2/3rds majority in Parliament, an advantage now regularly enacted by the new party in power.

In the hundred days following the election, sweeping measures were passed by the Parliament that curtail Hungarians' freedoms. The reforms include an installation of a "media presidium", drastic legislation against journalistic independence and an attempt to control the content coming from the last remaining independent art centers and theatres. The government is taking these actions under the new mantra of "re-nationalization", an effort where judicial law is compromised and the consolidation of power is increased under nationalist rhetoric. This new mantra is conveyed in a government manifesto that is now required by law to be displayed in every public sphere across the country.

Another indication of Hungary's shift to the right is Jobbik, a right wing nationalist party known for their anti-Semitic and anti-gay speech that won an unprecedented 47 seats into Parliament. The growing influence of prominent extreme right political players is in part a backlash from the Socialist Party's failures which resulted in a disenfranchised, fragmented left. In 2008, Hungary experienced an economic collapse and was subsequently bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. Amid their economic struggle, Hungarians became disillusioned with Socialism, leading to the eventual takeover of the center and far right. Presently, under Fidesz's reign, the public live in an unpredictable political climate in which Jobbik's bigoted ideology could gain momentum among alienated Hungarians that feel unrepresented by the current government. Already, an anonymously published list of many prominent Jewish, Bolshevik and Homosexual Hungarian political and cultural figures has been circulated, bolstering a climate of demonization that is reminiscent of McCarthy's Communist era blacklisting. The targeting and slandering of different groups and demographics of the population are essential tools for a would-be dictatorship to propagate the fear required for a compliant culture.

In an attempt to eliminate society's free expression, the Cultural Committee of the government has recommended the "removal of independent theatres and contemporary moving art companies from the roll of accredited artistic organizations". Fidesz has refused to disperse 1/3 of the money already allocated for the independent theater and art sector, resulting in cancellations of major festivals and closure of numerous art centers. A complete cessation of government funds would not only threaten thousands of jobs but would also significantly threaten Hungary's celebrated culture and heritage.

The art organizations that remain are receiving "content recommendations" from government, requiring that the art reflect kindly on the nation. This is particularly alarming given the crucial role of independent art and media in times of political and societal despair. In every country, such outlets have served an essential role in society by reflecting a cultural climate and shaping people's greater understanding of the world in which they live. Forums for dialogue and independent expression naturally breed dissent against the status quo, which likely explains the harsh crackdown on the art and media sector since Hungary's abrupt political transition. Many are disagreeing with the suppression—there have already been multiple high profile resignations attributed to the government's intrusion in this field.

Fidesz's latest assault on the arts is focused on the internationally acclaimed National Theatre of Hungary and its award winning art director, Robert Alfoldi. Members of Parliament have pronounced the Theatre "dangerous, anti-national and anti-Hungarian" for its plans to host a Romanian holiday concert, and are calling for the immediate resignation of Alfoldi for his "betrayal". On December 1st, Jobbik held a rally outside of the National Theatre building with the purpose of instigating Alfoldi's expulsion. If Alfoldi is dismissed early from his term without legal basis, his removal would signify a dangerous precedent in which leaders from any cultural institution can be dismissed simply because of the ruling party's ideals.

At the same time, an even more controversial piece of legislation passed under Fidesz is the new "Media Constitution" or Bill T/363, which set up the framework to regulate Hungary media on a day-to-day basis for the next nine years or longer. According to Dr. Karol Jakubowicz, an international expert in broadcasting and a member of the Kosovo Independent Media Commission, Bill T/393 creates a registration system that would construct potential legal and political barriers to new content entering the media landscape in conjunction with providing Hungary's government the ability to take increased action against existing providers of "vaguely unwanted content".

Another aspect of the bill prohibits the incitation to hatred against nations, ethnic, religious, minority or majority groups. According to Jakubowicz, the vague restriction of "inciting hatred" is a slippery slope that would undoubtedly lead to similar sanctions of unintentional insult or inadvertent incitement to hatred from media outlets that are simply capable of insult and exclusion.

Jakubowicz writes that Bill T/363 "require[s] instituting a system of surveillance, supervision and possible repression that are unacceptable in a democratic society... placing Hungary alongside authoritarian countries seeking to control all forms of social communication."

The moves by the Fidesz government to alter the constitution, as well as to control modes of communication and social networks in the country, amount to a current political setting that has unsettling similarities to Germany's rise to fascism. Dictatorships and developing fascist states have always expelled nationalist rhetoric and Party propaganda justifying the takeover of free society—the Nazi Party in Germany believed propaganda was a vital tool in achieving their goals, and produced it under the Orwellian "Ministry of Public Enlightenment".

In the Nazi Party manifesto, the first point demanded the "union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples." Similar propaganda is emerging in Hungary in the guise of the Fidesz Party's manifesto, The Hungarian National Assembly of National Cooperation, which states that Hungary has "regained the right and power of self-determination". Frighteningly, Fidesz's political declaration is now mandated to be prominently displayed and framed in most public spaces across the country.

The manifesto further declares that a Hungarian revolution took place in April's elections in which "Hungarians decided to create a new system: The National Cooperation System. With this historical act the Hungarian nation obliged the incoming National Assembly and Government to take the helm at this endeavor, resolute, uncompromising and with deliberation, and control the construction of the National Cooperation System in Hungary."

The document also explains that this "new social contract" will "bring together the diverse Hungarian nation," creating a future based on the societal pillars of "work, home, family, health and order." Hungary's nationalist rhetoric is all too similar to the coded words ringing from previous regimes that sought to homogenize the face and values of the nations they ruled.

In Nazi Germany, journalists, writers, and actors were required to tow the official Party line on world events, and had to get their work pre-approved by the state before disseminating it to the public. In Hungary, artists are receiving "content recommendations" from the government, and the new Hungarian Media Constitution requires that all media shall provide "appropriate information" that is "factual, timely and balanced"--all factors that are determined by Fidesz.

Nazism and Communism still scar Hungary's past. The country's regression to its dark history should be watched closely by the international community, especially the European Union (EU). Hungary's 2004 membership into the EU symbolized an agreement to operate under an ethical code of political and societal conduct established by the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter prohibits discrimination and enshrines the freedom of expression, thought, and religion for all EU citizens.

Already, Fidesz has set up a legal framework restricting free expression, and has created a climate of fear that impinges upon Hungarians' fundamental rights protected by the EU Charter. If international attention and criticism are not received in time, Hungary could continue down an authoritarian road similar to the Nazis—eventually condemning, incarcerating or even killing those who do not uphold the principles of the Party.

Abby Martin is a freelance writer, citizen journalist, activist and artist living in Oakland, CA. You can find more of her writing at www.MediaRoots.org and view her artwork at www.AbbyMartin.org

Sometimes you might get it.

For most of the past year, public interest groups worried about the future of the Internet have pushed for action on net neutrality by the Federal Communications Commission. In response to that call, Chairman Julius Genachowski moved in the spring to reclassify broadband services, proposing a light regulatory protocol as a "third way".

After that didn't exactly take off, the chair convened meetings with industry including AT&T, Skype, Verizon and Google, meetings that broke down after Google and Verizon announced a deal that would introduce paid content prioritization. In the ensuing uproar, the issue once again rose to the level of a burning public debate with right-wing accusations of "Obamacare for the Internet" competing with public interest laments about slow lanes on the Internet to come for alternative news, independent artists and musicians, and community groups.

A stalemate was waiting to be broken. The chairman jumped into the breach once again (apparently hoping the 3rd time would be the charm) and announced the release of an order to be voted on December 21st. The order passed Tuesday on a 3-2 vote, but is not promising with some restraints on network management practices for wired systems, but a far less strict protocol for mobile and wireless networks and little control of paid prioritization marketing schemes.

The Federal Communications Commission is a five-person commission, with two Republican commissioners who were opposed to any action whatsoever and two Democratic commissioners who were expected to push for stronger regulations, which left the Chairman (a Democrat supported by a Democratic president) as the tiebreaking vote.

So what are we to make of this order?

Genachowski's order does attempt to impose some teeth to enforce the equal treatment of data on wired connections. The arbitrary jamming of Bit Torrent uploads that was chronicled by Robb Topolsky and led to sanctions on Comcast in 2008 would not be permitted. At least in the eyes of the FCC. But their legal authority to enforce sanctions without reclassifying is shaky at best, and may not hold up to a court challenge.

So your laptop is theoretically on neutral territory when you have it plugged into a wall. Take it on the road, however, and you're in a different ballpark. The order skimps on extending neutrality protections to mobile Internet usage so traveling laptops, smart phones and tablet devices like the ipad are largely exempted from rules assuring the equal treatment of all data and all applications of your choice.

Some of you may be thinking that in 10 years, it is likely the majority of Internet traffic will be on one mobile platform or another. You wouldn't be wrong.

We may be regulating the Internet equivalent of the Pony Express.

The other big elephant in the living room is the threat of paid content prioritization. Is that an imaginary threat?

Not if you listened to the CEO of the UK's Virgin Internet, who had this to say way back in 2008:

In an interview with the Royal Television Society's Television magazine, far from covering up their intentions, Virgin Media's new incoming CEO Neil Berkett - who joined the Virgin Media Board just a few days ago - has launched an attack on the ideas and principles behind net neutrality. "This net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks," he said, adding that Virgin is already in the process of doing deals to speed up the traffic of certain media providers and that he has promised to put any website or service that won't pay Virgin a premium to reach its customers into the "Internet bus lane."

While you probably wouldn't get any American telecom CEO to be quite so blunt, it stands to reason the profit model is not wildly different in the United Kingdom than it is here at home.

We don't simply have to rely on telegraphs from abroad; Comcast, always the first to leap off any bridge, recently started charging a recurring fee for the transmission of Netflix streaming videos by their third party provider Level Three Communications. Thomas Stortz, the legal officer for Level Three had this to say:

With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast's subscribers at all, unless Comcast's unilaterally determined toll is paid - even though Comcast's subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a 'closed' Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content.

Level Three will pay the fees and then presumably increase what they charge Netflix and then Netflix will increase what it charges consumers and life will go on with a $5 month surcharge, but if you think about the competitive implications after Comcast merges with NBC, then the true horror of paid prioritization comes into focus. It will be cheaper, easier, faster to access NBC content on Comcast internet connections because ..... no fees.

After every major content provider scuttles to sign a preferred content deal with one or another major Internet service provider, God help the consumer trying to locate some not-so-preferred content.

The Internet slow lane might become a pretty lonely place.

This is a conservative estimate of the wide-scale plunder that includes monies garnered from hidden rate hikes, depreciation allowances, write-offs and other schemes. Ironically, in 2009, the FCC's National Broadband plan claimed it will cost about $350 billion to fully upgrade America's infrastructure.

The principal consequence of the great broadband con is not only that Americans are stuck with an inferior and overpriced communications system, but the nation's global economic competitiveness has been undermined.

In a June 2010 report, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranked the U.S. 15th on broadband subscribers with 24.6 percent penetration; the consulting group, Strategy Analytics, is even more pessimistic, ranking the U.S. 20th with a "broadband" penetration rate of 67 percent compared to South Korea (95 percent), Netherlands (85 percent) and Canada (76 percent). Making matters worse, Strategy Analytics projects the U.S. ranking falling to 23rd by year-end 2010.

But these are just overall statistics. Today, people in Japan, Korea, Europe and other countries get broadband services that are 100-mbps services in both directions for what we pay for inferior, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber line (ADSL), while in Hong Kong companies have started to offer 1-gigabit speeds.*

Part of the reason for this is these countries have sunk more fiber optical cable into the ground and connected more homes to the next-generation grid. According to the OECD, the U.S. ranks 11th with only 5 percent fiber penetration, compared to Japan (54 percent), Korea (49 percent) and European OECD countries (11 percent).

Another reason for the woeful state of U.S. broadband is that we have one of the slowest networks in the world. According to the technology company, Akamai, the U.S. ranked 22nd globally in average connection datarate speed, averaging only 3.8-mbps in Q-4 2009. In comparison, Korea's average datarate was nearly three-times faster (11.7-mbps), Hong Kong more then double (8.6-mbps) and Japan was at 7.6-mbps. A surprise to many, Romania had an average rate of 7.2-mbps and Latvia clocked at 6.2-mbps.

Screwed

Grand cons regularly screw Americans. Millions bet the lottery that never pays off; millions go to Las Vegas and Atlantic City hoping for the big score and leave with empty pockets; and millions bet big-time on a housing run-up and lost big, big time. Hustlers offer a zillion get-rich schemes over TV and the Internet that people accepted either out of naivety, greed or desperation. But one of the greatest -- and little reported -- scams perpetuated on the American public is the broadband con.

The scam was simple. Starting in 1991, Verizon, Qwest and what became AT&T offered each state -- in true "Godfather" style -- a deal they couldn't refuse: Deregulate us and we'll give you Al Gore's future. They argued that if state Public Utility Commission (PUCs) awarded them higher rates and stopped examining their books, they would upgrade the then-current telecommunications infrastructure, the analog Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) of aging copper wiring, into high-speed and two-way digital optical fiber networks.

State regulators, like state politicians, are seduced by the sound of empty promises -- especially when sizable campaign contributions and other perks come their way. Hey, what are a few extra bucks charged to the customer every month for pie-in-the-sky promises? And who cares about massive tax breaks, accelerated depreciation allowances and enormous tax write-offs? The promises sound good on election day and nobody, least of all the voter, reads the fine print.

The broadband con has been played out across the country. In California, Pacific Bell (now part of AT&T) claimed it would spend $16 billion and have 5.5 million homes wired by 2000. Instead, after a merger with SBC in 1997 (renamed AT&T in 2005), it secured state deregulation and simply stopped building out the fiber-based broadband infrastructure. On the East Coast, things were pretty much the same. Bell Atlantic, which covered New Jersey to Virginia and is now part of Verizon, claimed it would spend $11 billion and have 8.7 million homes wires by 2000. And in Connecticut, SNET (now also part of AT&T) promised to spend $4.5 billion and have the entire state rewired by 2007. In the mid-West, the story was similar. Ameritech (now part of AT&T and which controlled five states, including Illinois and Ohio) claimed they would have 6 million homes wired by 2000. For Ohio, Ameritech claimed it would rewire every school, library and hospital with fiber by 2000. None of these promises have been realized.

Over the last two decades, the telcos have engaged in a lot of sleight-of-hand tricks to make Americans believe that broadband was real and their service was the world's best. In 1996 the Internet hit and everyone wanted to go online. This migration to the World Wide Web was led, not by AT&T and Verizon, but by thousands of small and larger ISPs from AOL and Prodigy to over 9,500 small ISPs.

By 1998, not only did the telephone companies mostly stop building out their networks, but instead of rolling out the next-generation "info superhighway," they pulled a bait-and-switch and rolled backward, offering customers ADSL service, a watered-down "broadband" connection that runs on good old copper wire.

Another trick used by telecoms has been to submit to federal and state regulators falsified cost models, often lying to regulators and the public. For example, the great lie was voiced in 1991 when the telecom boldly announced the new broadband age based on technologies that they claimed capable of delivering 45-mbps bi-directional services, but the technologies didn't exist and couldn't work out at the cost models submitted. When pushed, the phone companies presented self-produced, self-funded or self-serving "research" by shill think-tanks to buttress their claim for higher rates.

Now, nearly two decades after Gore announced the Info Superhighway and the telcos secured deregulation to build out the next-generation communications infrastructure, the nation's two largest phone companies, Verizon and AT&T, have begun to seriously deploy fiber services. In 2004 and with much fanfare, Verizon introduced FiOS, a fiber-to-the-home service. Today, it claims only 3.6 million subscribers and new subscriptions have stalled.

AT&T, which originally promised to launch its advances service, U-verse, in 2006 in 15 markets, got it running in 2007 but in only 11 markets -- and then not through an entire market. As of the end of Q-2, 2010, it claimed 2.5 million subscribers. Sadly, the telecoms have only 6 million full broadband fiber subscribers as of 2010. What happened to the other 94 million households they promised to sign-up?

Americans have paid and paid again billions of dollars for an imaginary upgrade to create a fiber optic future. The estimate of $320 billion has already been collected which means that every household has paid almost $3,000 to upgrade the phone networks. The question no wants to really address is simple: What have Americans gotten for the telecom broadband rip-off?

Playing the con

In order to understand how the broadband con works, it is useful to examine how it has played out in one state and extrapolate this to the other 49 states. In this case, we will examine New Jersey as representative of a nationwide policy.

New Jersey state law requires that by 2010, 100 percent of the state is to be rewired with 45-mbps, bi-directional service. To meet this goal, Verizon collected approximately $13 billion in approved rate increases, tax break and other incentives related to upgrading the Public Switched Telephone Networks. To cover its tracks, Verizon submitted false statements year after year, claiming that it was close to fulfilling its obligations. For example, in its 2000 Annual Report, it claimed that 52 percent of the state could receive "45-mbps in both directions or higher."

Based on such false claims, Verizon has benefited for significant pricing increases for essentially inexpensive computerized services. For example, Call Waiting and Call Forwarding cost less then $.01 cent to offer yet the company charges $4-$7 for such features. In addition, fees for inside wiring went up to $7.00 from $1.25.

The company also benefited from more invisible perks. It secured massive write-offs on its network even though it wasn't being replaced; it actually secured a write-off of over 105 percent above the amount of construction. These write-offs helped save it billions in taxes. These factors have helped significantly heighten the company's Return on Equity, the standard measurement of profits, jump from 12-14 percent before deregulation to 30-40 percent.

But all this gets complicated as they are no longer required to submit full New Jersey annual or quarterly reports and the FCC's filing requirements stopped in 2007. So, in 2009, Verizon, New Jersey outlined financials showed a "net income" loss of $194 million dollars, and a $160 million "tax benefit" and a series of "affiliate transactions," meaning transferring expenses to the utility but without showing monies flowing back.

Verizon's New Jersey coverage is for approximately 3.2 million households, which represents about 3 percent of total U.S. households. Extrapolating from New Jersey, we estimate that Americans have been bilked of at least $320 billion since deregulation went into effect in the mid-'90s.

Digital Houdini

Federal and state regulators ignore the great telecom rip-off -- politicians simply get too many contributions from too many lobbyists to worry about their constituents' phone bills. Telephone companies have orchestrated a massive digital Houdini act in which they present an image of an essential service that offers customers more for less.

After almost 20 years of telecom deregulation, the American communications infrastructure is in shambles. The FCC's broadband plans are now in play. While much debate has taken place over the future of net neutrality, particularly in light of the Google-Verizon proposal to maintain Internet net neutrality on wireline distribution and end it on wireless communications, little attention has been paid to the never-ending rate hikes, failure to deliver on previous promises, poor state of fiber deployment, and into who pocketed the missing $320 billion in over charges.

In 1967, James Coburn stared in a wonderful satire, The President's Analyst, about the corrupting power of a secretive TPC, the phone company. The film pits the Central Enquiries Agency (CEA) against the Federal Bureau of Regulation (FBR), an all-male agency consisting of J. Edgar Hoover look-alikes all under five-foot-six-inches tall. In the intervening four decades, but especially since the break-up of AT&T in 1984 and deregulation starting in 1993, the power of the telecommunications companies, including the cable industry, has both increasingly grown and become increasingly invisible. <br> <br>

A century ago, giant corporate trusts dominated America's economic landscape. A century later, they are back in full force and even greater control over the nation's economic life and political culture.

(For more detailed analyses of the great broadband rip-off, visit www.teletruth.com.)

David Rosen is a regular contributor to CounterPunch, Z-magazine and Brooklyn Rail and is author of 'Sex Scandals America: Politics & the Ritual of Public Shaming' and 'Off-Hollywood: The Making & Marketing of Independent Films.' He can be reached at drosen@ix.netcom.com. Bruce Kushnick, the founder of New Networks Institute, is a telecommunications industry analyst who regularly reports for Harvard Nieman’s Watchdog. He can be reached at bruce@newnetworks.com.

Filmmaker Jeff Kaufman made this short film on behalf of Americans Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, who have been detained in Tehran's Evin Prison for 474 days. Watch the film!

Bauer's fiancee Sarah Shourd was released on bail a month ago, citing humanitarian health-related concerns.  Free The Hikers, the friends and family advocacy effort, is a fiscally-sponsored project of Media Alliance.

Soon all Oakland Police will be outfitted with a video camera, and they may not have to tell you they’re using it.

In September 2010, the Oakland Police Department began testing a small video camera about the size of a cell phone worn on the uniform’s lapel. 20 officers participated in the testing period, a mix of officers from the traffic, crime reduction and patrol teams. OPD officer Holly Joshi reported that the initial testing went well and the cameras will be incorporated into OPD patrols in December 2010.

Currently 19 officers wear the cameras. OPD allows officers to turn the cameras on whenever they wish and requires the cameras be activated during car stops, walking stops, probation searches, parole searches, and search warrants. The cameras can record up to 4 hours of footage, and officers are unable to change the footage captured. Once downloaded to the server, the system administrator has sole access, and footage is stored for 5 years. The cameras will be paid for using leftover funding for the in-car camera system that was never fully integrated into the department.

Police usage of cameras presents a few interesting questions. It comes on the heels of the Mehserle trial for the murder of Oscar Grant, and at a time when the states of Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts made moves towards preventing citizens from recording on-duty police officers.

It also raises questions about the purported objectivity of video. Camera angles, when the camera is turned on and off, and how the viewers interpret what they see taking place within the frame all impact the determination of what “really” happened.

According to a KTVU article about San Jose’s testing of a similar device, Chief of Police Rob Davis said one benefit of cameras is their ability to provide evidence and save Internal Affairs the time and cost of pursuing complaints hinged on one person’s word against another.

As a citizen of Oakland, and someone who believes deeply in media literacy, I wonder about the embedded asumption that this kind of video is objective evidence. While video footage is likely to provide additional information, this could also eventually boil down to one person’s video against anothers.

                                                                                                                              I’d like to be able to assume that all police officers are driven by the “protect and serve” mantra, but situations are much more complicated, and abuse of authority happens. What does it mean to give authority the potential to support alleged abuse with footage shot literally from their perspective and automatically assumed to be objective? Does this serve to heighten the power differential between police officers and citizens who may not have the means to video tape police interactions?

Technology continues to move forward. It’s not unreasonable that cameras will be a standard law enforcement tool: the same way police use radio. My questions lie in the assumptions made about the technology. For example, when a communication via radio dispatch is unclear, I assume clarification is requested before action is taken. What’s the video equivalent of that request for clarification?

Perhaps it’s in the policies the department establishes about usage of that footage as evidence. Lets take a scenario in which a police interaction with a person escalates. The officer - sensing the escalation - turns on the camera as the person becomes angry. The officer restrains the person and the video is used as justification for the restraint in response to the complaint filed. Yes the video may show a situation in which an officer was justified in the use of restraint, but what happened before the camera was turned on? Did the person come running at the police officer unprovoked? Did the officer approach the person without cause? What had been the police’s interactions with this person during the last week, last month, last year? Now this “one person’s word against another secenario” is one person’s word against another who has a video that may or may not represent the context of the incident.

To date, it appears that the Oakland Police Department has set a date for full incorporation of the camera program, but has no policy regarding the ethical usage of the resulting footage or had any discussions about how video may not always be the gold standard in objectivity.

As we grow increasingly dependent on the Internet for everything from soup to nuts: employment and educational opportunities, staying in touch with friends and family, and accessing critical news and information, the question of how this essential network operates has never been more important. Does it work in the interests of the people who rely on it? Or does it work more and more in the interests of the large telecom companies who deploy the wires and deliver the bits and bytes?

Broadband for the People, a campaign of the Media Action Grassroots Network, (http://www.mag-net.org) a nationwide coalition of community organizations working together for media change, calls for the full adoption, affordability, and openness of broadband networks. Without these 3 central principals underpinning our communication system, the tremendous power the Internet holds for creativity, economic expansion, civil rights and civic engagement will never be recognized. And the social divides that rack this country with poverty, racism and limited opportunity for many, will carry over, unchanged, into the digital realm - "the digital divide". We didn't get anywhere as a country by vowing to electrify 2/3 of our homes and leave the other 1/3 in the dark. And similarly, we can't settle for anything short of full adoption, full affordability and full openness.

It's a big challenge to get from here to there. For many years, the US has been stuck at about 70% connectivity - with the lagging 30% heavily concentrated in rural communities, poor communities, communities of color and limited English-fluency households. We've also stayed well shy of the top ten countries in the world on most measures of the available speed and reliability of our connections. One can say, without exaggerating, that the performance of our vendors, the large telecom companies that dominate the marketplace, has been firmly mediocre. There's a lot of room for people and neighborhood organizations to take on the challenge of making this situation better for ourselves. Here are some ways we can begin:

-- Share Resources - Multiple technologies exist for allowing groups of people to share connectivity that might be unaffordable to them in solitude. While many large telecoms frown on such arrangements, not all do (including the few hardy independent ISP's that have survived) and in these days of financial distress, we all need to find ways to meet basic needs with dwindling resources. If four families banding together can share expenses, that is four less families in the dark. One example of a local initiative is Oakland's 510pen.

-- Institutionalize Digital Literacy - Libraries and other community centers have been providing "computers" for years - and this has been a valuable service, especially in economically challenged communities. But after years of these programs, a stubborn digital divide remains. It is naïve to expect that the mere provision of a computer converts a non-user to a fully engaged digital citizen.

How to find things online, how to stay safe from cyber-theft and online harassment, understand copyright and digital property rights, fix things when they break, identify reliable and less-reliable sources of information, and locate culturally, geographically and linguistically appropriate content is not always obvious. All of our residents need local and accessible resources to help late adopters come on board to the benefits that Internet access, whether via computer or smart phones, can offer. Broadband for the People is working on a digital literacy toolkit for local organizations to work from in taking on the challenge of working for full digital adoption in their neighborhoods.

-- Fight for Internet Openness and Affordability Like We Mean It - Public policy often seems arcane to people's real-life struggles and nowhere is that more true than in the world of telecommunications policy. Who can even read an FCC Request for Information, much less reply to all 67 pages of it? But there are two important public policy fights that we cannot sit out if we believe that 1/3 in the dark is too many.

The first is to re-organize the Universal Service Fund (most of you will recognize part of it as the "Lifeline" telephone service fee) so it applies to broadband Internet connections as well as telephones.

The second is an open Internet - which means the equal treatment of all kinds of data and all kinds of applications - by pipes that are neutral and do not discriminate. An Internet that redlines is an Internet that cannot deliver the promise of equal opportunity to all. Net neutrality is not negotiable.

So the next time you get a request to sign a petition or go to a hearing, don't just send it to the circular file. We only have one chance for a people's Internet - and the time is now.

A day-long comedy of errors began Monday morning when the Yes Men, supported by Rainforest Action Network and Amazon Watch, pre-empted Chevron's enormous new "We Agree" ad campaign with a satirical version of their own. The activists' version highlights Chevron's environmental and social abuses - the same abuses they say Chevron is attempting to “greenwash.”

“Chevron's super-expensive fake street art is a cynical attempt to gloss over the human rights abuses and environmental degradation that is the legacy of Chevron's operations in Ecuador, Nigeria, Burma and throughout the world,” said Ginger Cassady, a campaigner at Rainforest Action Network. “They must think we're stupid.”

“They say we're 'interrupting the dialogue,'” said Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men, referring to Chevron's terse condemnation. “What dialogue? Chevron's ad campaign is an insulting, confusing monologue - with many tens of millions of dollars behind it.”

The activists' pre-emptive campaign began early Monday with a press release from a spoof Chevron domain which launched the fake “We Agree” campaign hours before the real Chevron could launch its ads. The fake "We Agree" site  featured four “improved” advertisements, complete with downloadable PDF files to be used in on-the-street postering.

Nine hours later, after producing its own “We Agree” press release,  the real Chevron decried the hoax in a predictably curt and humorless manner.  Mere moments later, the counter-campaign issued a much better denial on Chevron's laying out Chevron's principal arguments in its Ecuador case. “We have binding agreements with the Ecuadorian Government exempting us from any liabilities whatsoever, granted in exchange for a $40 million cleanup of some wells by Texaco in the 1990s,” the spoof press release crowed, absurdly yet accurately.

Throughout the day, a sort of slow vaudeville unfolded on the web, as a number of outlets, from industry mouthpieces to the AFP and even a watchdog group, produced accidental mash-ups of “real” and fake information.

First, Fast Company fell for the hoax then related their duping with humor. An outlet called “Environmental Leader,” quoted indiscriminately from both real and fake press releases, before quietly removing the fake parts a few hours later. 

Shortly after that, Energy Digital, an online source providing “news and information for Energy Executives” (capitalization theirs), quoted extensively from the fake release to describe Chevron's campaign, then mentioned that the campaign had “already been spoofed.” They didn't realize they'd just fallen for that very same spoof.

Even the AFP found itself duped and described with glee the hoax “that appeared to have fooled some news outlets,” before going on to quote “the real firm” at length. (The “real firm” wasn't.)

“If you really want to snooker the media, it's pretty hard for them to resist,” said Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men. “We cobbled together some fake releases with string and thumbtacks and chewing gum, and we fooled the most respectable outlets.”

“Chevron is doing what we did, a million times over, with a ginormous budget - and it never reveals its subterfuge,” said Bichlbaum. “No wonder the media's full of lies.”

“Yesterday's spoof was a comedy of errors, but what's happening in Ecuador is no joke,” said Mitch Anderson, a campaigner at Amazon Watch. “While Chevron spends tens of millions every year to greenwash their image and fool the media, Ecuadorians continue to die from their toxic legacy."

Yesterday's hoax is just the beginning for the activists. “Stay tuned,” said RAN's Cassady. “There's a lot more to come in the days ahead. We're going to keep Chevron scrambling. 

###

The Yes Men work to expose corporate crimes, mainly through humor.

The case arose when the company did not want corporate information in the hands of government agencies to become publicly available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Individuals are protected from that possibility when the documents involve their personal privacy, according to Denniston. 

Information about AT&T's billing practices are on hand at the FCC after a now-resolved investigation. Rival telecommunications companies sought the records, and AT&T protested. A federal appeals court said that AT&T is entitled to the same personal privacy rules that protect individuals, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Sensationalism is rampant in our consolidated news system, where scandal, celebrity gossip and violence (or the threat of looming violence) lead the headlines. Ever wonder why this is all we see and read and hear?

It isn’t simply that scandal and violence are all that’s happening in our communities; in fact, it’s the only news that companies want to cover. And they make it expressly clear to their reporters.

Take a look at the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach expressed with chilling precision in the submission guidelines of the self-described “backbone of the world’s information system” – the Associated Press. On their website, the nation’s oldest news wire describes their mission “…to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability, and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.”

Sounds great. The problem is the AP’s editorial submission guidelines are doomed to produce mind-numbing, paranoia-inducing stories that are neither informed nor newsworthy. For example, here are AP Minnesota’s guidelines for journalists looking to pitch stories:

AP Members Want:
• Train wrecks, airplane crashes, drownings, fatal auto accidents (if there are multiple victims or unusual circumstances) and unusual accidental deaths;
• Meetings where action of regional or statewide interest is taken or where a prominent person speaks;
• Riots, demonstrations, strikes;
• Major fires (involves loss of life, public disruption or destruction of a structure/site known statewide), explosions, oil or other chemical spills.--Unusual bank robberies (exceptionally violent, hostages taken, serial robber, etc.);
• Weather news, including ice and hail storms, heavy snows, damaging rains and floods, record heat and cold, tornadoes; and,
• Human interest stories. The odd, the offbeat, the heart-warming.

Don’t Share:

• Non-fatal auto or boating accidents;
• Motor vehicle chases, unless major damage or loss of life occurs;
• Routine city council, school board or other public meetings, unless an issue being discussed at other meetings around the state -- such as state budget cuts -- is discussed;
• Bomb threats (unless a MAJOR public disruption results), petty crimes, minor drug busts, minor or non-fatal fires;
• Suicides or obituaries unless the person is known regionally or statewide or unusual circumstances are involved; and,
• Publicity handouts, including local pageant winners, fund-raisers and charity events.

The guidelines for AP Ohio, largely the same, had this gem of an addition:

Yes: Single-victim murders that involve unusual circumstances, a prominent person or happen outside the metropolitan areas, where murders are common. Offer stories on the incident, arrests, formal charges and verdicts only, except in high-profile cases of statewide interest when changes in dates, venue or charges occur.

No: Routine one-victim murders in big cities, where murders are more common.

Read: no news coverage of low-income people and people of color being killed in urban areas. Tough luck if your brother/mother/son/daughter gets murdered in the city. Bor-ing. And pay no attention to those city council meetings – you know, where decisions are made about our communities; they’re not worth the column inches.

It’s no secret that the news – especially local news -- often leaves something to be desired. We rarely see coverage of stories that truly matter to our communities, or in-depth reporting that gets to the bottom of an issue, instead of just skimming the surface. And these AP guidelines offer an alarming glimpse into the mentality of our media system.

I think it’s high time we develop our own vision for what we want our news outlets to cover. After all, the news is supposed to be a public good, keeping us informed and engaged.

What might this vision look like? Here’s a start:

We Want:
• Coverage and analysis of local elections, state legislative issues and regional business, education and environmental news;
• Journalism that holds our leaders in government and business accountable;
• News that is as diverse as our country;
• Reporting that prevents wars, economic collapse and environmental disasters, not just covers them after the fact;
• Journalism that empowers communities and promotes personal agency;
• Coverage of issues that are important to women and people of color;
• Hard-hitting investigative journalism and original reporting on issues of community relevance; and,
• In-depth reporting on local issues that is accurate, credible and verifiable.

Don’t Share:

• He-said-she-said journalism (or "balanced reporting") that covers both sides without getting at the truth;
• Horserace election coverage that is more enamored with polls and controversies than real issues;
• Fawning interviews with people in power;
• Press releases transcribed as news;
• Gratuitous blood and gore;
• Oddball human interest stories that teach us nothing useful about the world;
• Coverage that reinforces negative stereotypes;
• Time-wasting in-depth coverage of local weather conditions;
• Celebrity news and gossip; and,
• “News” shilling the latest consumer craze.

To be clear, I’m not asking the AP and others to water down their reporting to shield us from negative news. I just want quality reporting that reflects what’s truly happening in our communities, not the junk news reporters are told to sniff out.

I’m interested to know what you want to see in your local news. If you were to create editorial guidelines for your local newspaper or TV station, what would they include? Use the comment section on the original article to share your thoughts.