F.C.C. chairman rejects Skype petition

From The Associated Press via The New York Times:

The Federal Communications Commission should reject a petition by eBay Inc.'s Skype division to require wireless operators to allow any device on their networks, the agency's chairman said Tuesday.

To applause, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told an audience at the CTIA Wireless trade show that the industry's recent push toward openness makes such a rule unnecessary. Skype, which provides free voice calls and videoconferencing over Internet connections, asked the commission in February 2007 to apply the 1968 Carterfone decision to wireless networks. The decision opened AT&T's wireline network to phones not made by the monopoly phone company. Martin cited Verizon Wireless' decision to open its network to any device or application by the end of this year, and the participation by T-Mobile USA and Sprint Nextel Corp. in Google Inc.'s Open Handset Alliance, which is developing new software for phones.

''In light of the industry's embrace of this more open approach, I think it's premature for the commission to place any other requirements on these networks,'' Martin said. ''Today I'm going to circulate to my fellow commissioners an order dismissing the petition by Skype that would apply Carterfone requirements to existing wireless networks.'' EBay said it was disappointed in Martin's statement. Recent industry changes were positive, but incomplete, the company said Tuesday. The petition was meant to protect consumers' rights ''to use any application and any device on a wireless network,'' eBay said in a statement.

''While we are cautiously optimistic that the carriers will deliver greater openness, unfortunately, if the FCC acts on the chairman's recommendation, it will have given up the tools to protect consumers if they do not,'' said Christopher Libertelli, a director of government affairs for Skype. Martin's order would need the support of two other commissioners to take effect, support that's likely to come from the two Republican appointees.

Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps criticized the chairman's move. ''This is not the time for the FCC to declare victory and withdraw from the fight for open wireless networks,'' Copps said in a statement. ''While we are all encouraged by preliminary commitments from some of the major carriers, we haven't seen the details yet on how they are going to proceed -- and the devil is always in the details, isn't it?'' The FCC did apply open-access requirements to a segment of the 700 megahertz spectrum it recently auctioned for a total of $19.6 billion. Verizon Wireless bought most of the airwaves set off for open access.

The FCC's preordained mistake

From Ryan Blethen in the Seattle Times:

The divergent views of the Republicans and Democrats on the Federal Communications Commission is a startling and yet informative glimpse into how the media cross-ownership ban was obliterated.

The commissioners' opening statements spoke volumes about the deep division at the FCC. The Republicans ­ Kevin Martin, Deborah Tate and Robert McDowell ­ spouted nonsense about multiple platforms providing competition, and how a failing newspaper can be saved by acquiring a broadcast outlet.

The new rule permits a company to own a newspaper and broadcast station in any of the nation's top 20 media markets as long as there are at least eight media outlets in the market. If the combination includes a television station, that station cannot be among the top four in that market. The FCC can grant a waiver to companies that
don't meet the criteria.

The FCC also made permanent 42 waivers, and made it possible for companies outside the top 20 markets to gain cross-ownership waivers. The Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein eloquently spoke about the need to preserve a diversity of voices in a democracy. "Central to our American democracy is a rich and varied supply of
news and information," Adelstein said.

Copps and Adelstein also explained the FCC's horrid process used to review media-ownership rules, which ignored the public's overwhelming support of the cross-ownership ban.

Copps: "Everywhere we go, the questions are the same: Why are we rushing to encourage more media-merger frenzy when we haven't addressed the demonstrated harms caused by previous media-merger frenzy?"

The question begs for an answer. Martin, McDowell and Tate all bragged about the deliberative, thorough and open process the commission embarked upon 18 months ago.

"I believe that the process we have engaged in over the past year and a half has been open, transparent, and thorough ­ a true example of our vibrant democracy at work," said Tate.

Life must be magical in Tate's sunshiny world. How she and McDowell rolled over as Martin continually abused the trust of his colleagues and the public is beyond explanation.

Anybody who pays attention to the FCC or covers it witnessed how Martin sprung proposals and hearings on the commission at the last minute, ignored Congress and the public's shouts to halt media consolidation, and ignored studies he commissioned that did not agree with a preordained outcome.

Adelstein and Copps highlighted in their statements how Martin continued with his cloaked process to the end. Copps said that at 9:44 p.m. Monday he received a revised draft of the proposal. Then at 1:57 a.m. Tuesday, the day of the vote, he was told of more revisions, then at 11:12 a.m. another bunch of changes were e-mailed as he was leaving his office for the vote.

"This is not the way to do rational, fact-based and public interest-minded policymaking," Copps said. "It's actually a great illustration of why administrative agencies are required to operate under the constraints of administrative process ­ and the problems that occur when they ignore that duty. At the end of the day, process matters."

The Republican's insistence that newspapers can only be saved by owning a broadcast outlet added to the unbridgeable gulf between the camps.

McDowell said, "The evidence in the record tells us that if you are under 30, you are probably not reading a traditional newspaper or tuning in to your local broadcasters."

He did not elaborate how a company owning a newspaper and a television station in the same market would convince the under-30 set that they should subscribe to the newspaper or watch television newscasts.

It is encouraging that the FCC is concerned about newspapers. But it's unfortunate it does not realize media consolidation has damaged the industry by making it beholden to the aggressive demands of Wall Street. The rule approved Tuesday will only further drive the press toward corporate journalism.

"Newly merged entities will attempt to increase their profit margins by raising advertising rates and relentless cost-cutting," Copps said. "Herein is the real economic justification for media consolidation within a single market."

At best, the FCC majority was confused by the data, which clearly show the damage done by consolidation. This probably is not the case. I fear that they do understand.

Obama calls FCC "irresponsible" on media ownership rule plans

From Matthew Lasar in Lasar's Letter on the FCC:

Presidential hopeful and U.S. Senator Barack Obama has asked the Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin to rethink its proposed timeline for revising the agency's media ownership rules. "According to press accounts, you intend to present specific changes to existing rules in November with a Commission vote on that proposal —whatever it may be—on December 18, 2007," Obama wrote to the Commission today. "I believe both the proposed timeline and process are irresponsible."

Last week The New York Times and Associated Press both ran stories suggesting that Martin wants to fast track a vote on the FCC's media ownership rules. Up for grabs are caps limiting how many newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations a single entity can own. Martin has long favored relaxing restrictions that would prevent an entity from owning a newspaper and a TV station in the same city.

The AP article reported that Martin plans to propose new media ownership rules soon, likely at a hearing on October 31. The public would be allowed to comment through mid-November and some of December. The Commission would vote on the proposal at a meeting on December 18. The Commission would also hold its last hearing on its media ownership provisions in Seattle on November 2nd, according to the story.

Obama's letter to the FCC said that he found it "disturbing" that the FCC is considering these changes. "It is unclear what your intent is on the rest of the media ownership regulations," he wrote. "Repealing the cross ownership rules and retaining the rest of our existing regulations is not a proposal that has been put out for public comment; the proper process for vetting it is not in closed door meetings with lobbyists or in selective leaks to the New York Times."

The statement calls for the FCC to create an independent panel to explore ways to further media ownership diversity, something that FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, has proposed. "In closing, I ask you to reconsider your proposed timeline, put out any specific change to the rules for public comment and review, move to establish an independent panel on minority and small business media ownership, and complete a proceeding on the responsibilities that broadcasters have to the communities in which they operate," the letter concludes.

FCC's Martin opposes return of Fairness Doctrine

From Radio Ink:

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has come out strongly against the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, saying in a letter to Rep. Mike Pence, "In my judgment, the events of the last two decades have confirmed the wisdom of the [FCC's] decision to abolish the Fairness Doctrine."

Martin's letter, dated July 23 and made public today, was written in response to a July 19 letter in which Pence asked Martin for his views on "the appropriateness of the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment."

Pence and Rep. Greg Walden on July 11 introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would take away the FCC's authority to reinstate the policy that until 1987 required broadcasters to present both sides of any controversial issue, and the bill now has more than 130 co-sponsors. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate last month.

In his letter, Martin states, "Discussion of controversial issues over the airwaves has flourished absent regulatory constraints, and the public now enjoys access to an ever-expanding range of views and opinions. Indeed, with the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened even further since 1987."

Martin concludes, "In short, I see no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment and believe that such a step would inhibit the robust discussion of issues of public concern over the nation's airwaves."

FCC Chairman Martin to telcos: No blocking Iowa calls

From Paul Kapustka at GigaOM:

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Thursday that the commission told large telcos to stop blocking calls into numbers for the Iowa-based free calling operations, threatening punitive actions if the carriers didn’t comply.

While the immediate FCC pressure was a victory for the Iowa telcos and Internet calling concerns whose services had been blocked by AT&T and Qwest, left unsolved is the separate question of whether or not the large carriers have to pay up the millions in disputed connection fees into the Iowa-based operations. But Martin, after a scheduled public appearance in Silicon Valley, made it clear that the commission took immediate action against the moves to block or restrict calls, saying they were in violation of FCC rules.

“We actually contacted the companies that were listed in the press [reports] and said our rules prohibit you from blocking consumers’ access to any of the service providers,” Martin said. Martin said the informal communication to the big telcos who were blocking calls was that if they didn’t stop immediately, the commission would start a formal process for legal recourse within days, and “would end up taking action as we saw necessary.”

According to Martin, all the offending telcos responded and said they would stop blocking — sort of. “One had stopped blocking, but we heard complaints the next week that they were restricting access, sort of narrowing the pipe,” said Martin. “We called them back and said, no, no, you can’t artificially degrade [service] either.”

On whether or not the FCC would force AT&T and Qwest to pay disputed access-charge bills, Martin said that was a separate issue, and covered by petitioning processes that might take further time to resolve. “If you have a dispute about the intercarrier compensation rules, you can file petitions, and come to the commission to get redress,” Martin said. “But you can’t just stop letting consumers make those calls.”