In case you forgot, this announcement comes just a little less than four months since Baker voted to approve the cable giant’s merger with NBC Universal. A little fishy, right? Under her new position, she is barred from lobbying the FCC, but she can still use her connections in Congress in order to benefit Comcast’s cause.

Should this action be acceptable? We’d love to hear your opinion.

Joel Kelsey, who is a political advisor with nonprofit group Free Press, told us that these “revolving door” instances are happening so frequently that they have, essentially, turned into a “valet service.”

“It’s got a lot of people scratching their head because it’s not the only example of a revolving door aspect of FCC staff leaving the Commission to go work for the companies they once regulated, but it certainly is the most blatant example,” he said.

According to him, this is the type of ongoing behavior that has given the American people a bad impression of government. The regulators are supposed to protect the public even if the best interest isn’t in accordance with that of the shareholders and investors.

Although Commissioner Baker claims she acted within the law, Free Press and others believe the ethical issues are much greater. Kelsey said the biggest ethical issue is how and when Comcast went about asking Baker to come on board.

“There’s always the question of, ‘Do I want to go work for this company that offered me a job after I’m done with my time here at the Commission?’ And that is certain to have an affect on the decisions a commissioner makes,” he said.

While Kelsey doesn’t think that Baker’s influence would protect Comcast entirely from regulators, he did say that she could be a “cushion” for them. He and Free Press are asking people to contact Congressman Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and request an investigation based on a conflict of interest for Baker.

Kelsey also suggests that consumers contact their senators and ask Congress to enforce a pledge that would limit how quickly employees of government agencies could work for the companies that they once regulated.

Do you think this type of pledge is necessary?

The public interest groups who sent the letter to the FCC include Free Press, the Center for Media Justice, Media Access Project, New America Foundation Open Technology Institute and Presente.org .

Last week, MetroPCS, the nation’s fifth-largest wireless provider, announced a new plan under which MetroPCS — not its customers — will decide which Internet sites and services are important. MetroPCS is advertising unlimited talk, text, “Web browsing” and YouTube at a base price of $40 per month — with all other uses only available on higher tiers at a higher cost.

The plans would effectively create a “walled garden” that excludes Skype, Netflix and other popular consumer Internet services, putting those service providers at a competitive disadvantage and restricting consumer choice and innovation.

“MetroPCS’s practices are particularly problematic because, as the company itself recognizes, it disproportionately serves lower-income subscribers, the same audience that is increasingly relying on mobile access to the Web, said Chris Riley, Free Press counsel.

“A walled garden in mobile broadband leaves a large number of Internet users on the wrong side of the digital divide.”

In a report, Free Press details how giant cable, satellite and phone companies and many programming networks, led by Comcast and Time Warner, are colluding on TV Everywhere that requires consumers to pay for cable TV subscriptions to access online programming.  Free Press maintains TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate the threat of online competition, limit consumer choice, and build on the cable TV model it says gouges consumers.

"This is a textbook antitrust violation," said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska, senior adviser to Free Press, and author of the report.

"The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves. TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate competition at a pivotal moment in the history of television. The antitrust authorities should not stand by and let the cable cartel crush Internet TV before it gets off the ground."

In a blog post by the President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Kyle McSlarrow, wrote, "TV Everywhere, specifically, would provide a new service at no extra charge to consumers who subscribe to a multichannel video programming service – whether provided by cable, satellite or telephone companies:  the ability to watch TV programs on PCs or laptops, and potentially other Internet-connected devices.  It could significantly increase the amount of high-value video content available online – something the FCC has said would help drive broadband adoption."
  Related Articles:

> Comcast Adds HBO To Online Programming

> Time Warner, Comcast To Offer Shows Online

> NBC Provides Substantial Funding To Mobile Ad Network

The groups are asking the FCC to require all providers to report census block-level broadband availability data. The FCC is currently collecting data that will be used to create a national broadband plan.

Ben Scott
Policy Director
Free Press

In addition to broadband availability, the groups say the FCC should look at other critical broadband data such as speed, price, cost, revenue, location and capacity.  This data can be used to create a clear picture of the nation’s information infrastructure, market competition and consumers’ online experience.

The groups that signed on to the letter include Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, New America Foundation, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union.

"The FCC needs a short-term plan of action for broadband data collection," said Ben Scott, policy director at Free Press.

"We are offering these policy changes as priorities for the public interest. We applaud the agency for its focus on data collection and look forward to working with the Commission on these issues."

Public Citizen, the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, and The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression have stepped to the defense of Waldo Jaquith, a Charlottesville, Virginia-based blogger subpoenaed to release a wide swath of information to a court in the process of hearing a defamation case.

Waldo Jaquith
by Jen Fariello
readthehook.com

Jaquith, an independent blogger who runs cvillenews.com, blogged about a lawsuit filed by Thomas Garret, a media personality, against Charlottesville weekly “The Hook.” Garret’s attorneys are demanding Jaquith produce all communications with sources for that blog post, that he identify all anonymous commentators on the blog, and all readers who read the blog post, according to Public Citizen. The suit seeks emails to and from Jaquith relating to Garret or the lawsuit, and any documents relating to information obtained, generated or created in writing the resulting article.

Paul Alan Levy

“One of our country’s founding values is that the person standing on the soapbox in the town square has the same freedom of speech they have at The New York Times or the Toledo Blade, for that matter,” said Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy. “Bloggers such as Jaquith may not be ‘traditional’ journalists but they play an integral part in the way people get their news today.”

An attorney for the ACLU warned that if the subpoena is allowed to stand, bloggers would have to look over their shoulders whenever they write about a pending lawsuit, which could have a chilling and devastating effect on free speech.

This case is state specific, and the attorneys stepping in on Jaquith’s behalf are arguing he’s covered under Virginia’s own journalist shield law. Nationally, under the House of Representatives’ proposed version of the Free Flow of Information Act, Jaquith would only be covered by federal shield laws if he makes a living from his blog and he has some sort of boss or employer.

We didn’t bother to ask Jaquith if he made money from his local news blog (judging from lack advertising, we’re guessing not) because that question is irrelevant. So is the question of whether he has a supervisor of some kind. If he considers himself a local watchdog, that should be enough for anybody, and he should be protected under any shield law targeted toward protecting freedom of the press.

In an interesting twist, this case is happening in Virginia, the home state of Rep. Rick Boucher, the sponsor of the House version of the Free Flow of Information Act. Without extending protection to bloggers, passion publishers, nonprofits (and now anonymous commentators, it would seem), Boucher and the slew of cosponsors on this bill (below) are abridging the freedom of the nonprofit, independent press, a clear violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Rep. Boucher did not return request for comment or defense of how the House has defined “journalist,” how it is not a violation of the First Amendment, or whether legislators intend to expand the definition to include the press in all its forms. Currently the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where hopefully these problems will be brought to light.

*House of Representatives Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 cosponsors: Mr. PENCE, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. WALDEN, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. COBLE, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. BLUNT, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. WU, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. MACK, Mr. MCCAUL, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WOLF, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. UPTON, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. BERRY, Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. WEINER, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. COOPER, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, and Mr. REHBERG
 

In a letter sent to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked why the company had failed to disclose "the distinct effects Comcast’s new network management technique has on Comcast’s VoIP offering versus those if its competitors."

http://www.webpronews.com/?p=48366 The Federal Communications Commission is investigating concerns that Comcast's new network management practices gives priority to its own digital voice services while degrading the quality of its competitors.

In a letter sent to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked why the company had failed to disclose "the distinct effects Comcast's new network management technique has on Comcast's VoIP offering versus those if its competitors."

]]> The Federal Communications Commission is investigating concerns that Comcast’s new network management practices gives priority to its own digital voice services while degrading the quality of its competitors.

In a letter sent to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked why the company had failed to disclose "the distinct effects Comcast’s new network management technique has on Comcast’s VoIP offering versus those if its competitors."

http://www.webpronews.com/?p=56386 The Federal Communications Commission is investigating concerns that Comcast's new network management practices gives priority to its own digital voice services while degrading the quality of its competitors.

In a letter sent to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked why the company had failed to disclose "the distinct effects Comcast's new network management technique has on Comcast's VoIP offering versus those if its competitors."

]]> The Federal Communications Commission is investigating concerns that Comcast’s new network management practices gives priority to its own digital voice services while degrading the quality of its competitors.

In a letter sent to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked why the company had failed to disclose "the distinct effects Comcast’s new network management technique has on Comcast’s VoIP offering versus those if its competitors."

http://www.webpronews.com/?p=57728 The Federal Communications Commission is investigating concerns that Comcast's new network management practices gives priority to its own digital voice services while degrading the quality of its competitors.

In a letter sent to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked why the company had failed to disclose "the distinct effects Comcast's new network management technique has on Comcast's VoIP offering versus those if its competitors."

]]> The Federal Communications Commission is investigating concerns that Comcast’s new network management practices gives priority to its own digital voice services while degrading the quality of its competitors.

In a letter sent to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked why the company had failed to disclose "the distinct effects Comcast’s new network management technique has on Comcast’s VoIP offering versus those if its competitors."

http://www.webpronews.com/?p=48330 The House Appropriations Committee wants to put $6 billion towards expanding broadband to rural areas of America.

"For every dollar invested in broadband the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment," the committee said in a report. The plan is part of an $825 billion stimulus package to be voted on by Congress.

Broadband advocates support the proposal but want measures in place to ensure transparency and accountability.

]]> The House Appropriations Committee wants to put $6 billion towards expanding broadband to rural areas of America.

"For every dollar invested in broadband the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment," the committee said in a report. The plan is part of an $825 billion stimulus package to be voted on by Congress.

Broadband advocates support the proposal but want measures in place to ensure transparency and accountability.

Ben Scott
Policy Director
Free Press

"While $6 billion is not as much as we had hoped for, it is a substantial investment that represents an important public commitment to broadband," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "This money must be tied to a single agency that can uphold clear principles of public service and enforce concrete administrative accountability."

Free Press sent letters to David Obey (D-Wisc.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Ill.), chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, asking that companies receiving the funds remain network neutral.

"First, tax dollars should not be used to fund closed, proprietary networks that shut out content providers, control consumer behavior, and encourage anticompetitive activity," the group wrote.

"We must be clear that it is the open market of unfettered innovation, collaborative production, and consumer curiosity that has driven the success of network technologies to date."
 

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/house-wants-6-billion-for-broadband-initiative-2009-01/feed 2