Falls Church, Virginia (CNN) — It’s a Tuesday night at Nell and Matt Dillard’s suburban Washington home, and the family of four is watching “Glee,” a scripted Fox television program.

Ninety seconds into the comedy, one of the teenage female characters makes mention of Asian men and their sexual prowess. Nell Dillard immediately looks over at her 13- and 11-year-old boys watching next to her, but she sees no immediate reaction they have gotten the veiled sexually suggestive “joke.”

“What’s up with that,” says father Matt Dillard, shaking his head at what he’s just heard. “Why throw that in this show?”

Such are challenges many families face when trying to control the video material their children receive from a range of content providers: TV, radio, Internet, mobile devices, and interactive video games.

Now the Supreme Court is poised to take a fresh look at a key aspect of multimedia regulation — so-called “indecent” material aired on the broadcast networks during the supposedly “family friendly” prime-time hours of 8 to 10 p.m. Oral arguments in this key free-speech dispute will be held Tuesday.

At issue is whether the Federal Communications Commission may constitutionally enforce its policies on “fleeting expletives” and scenes of nudity on prime-time television programs, both live and scripted. The agency had imposed hefty fines on broadcasters for separate incidents. An expected ruling by summer could establish important First Amendment guidelines over expressive content on the airwaves.

A range of competing interests are at stake: Free speech versus censorship; regulation versus responsibility; art versus indecency.

For the Dillards, the specific questions raised by this appeal are just the tip of digital iceberg.

“It’s not (like) when we were kids, when there was three networks and PBS,” Matt Dillard told CNN one recent evening. “We’ve had to do the controlling over anything coming over a screen — a TV screen, computer screen, telephone screen — anything where there is video content or streaming. We lump all that together. …

“It feels like the Wild West out there, where there is no rating system. We’re not asking for a clampdown on free speech. They (media) have every right to that. We’re just looking for the tools to help us make the best decisions for our kids.”

The Case

ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox are all parties in the case challenging the FCC regulations. A federal appeals court in 2010 for a second time struck down the government’s policies, concluding they were vague and inconsistently applied. Pending fines against the broadcasters were dismissed. The government then appealed to the high court.

Controversial words and images have been aired in scripted and unscripted instances on all the major over-the-air networks during the past decade, when the FCC began considering a stronger, no-tolerance policy.

The changes became known as the Golden Globes rule, for singer Bono’s 2003 acceptance speech at the live awards show on NBC, where he uttered the phrase “Really, really, f—ing brilliant.”

The commission specifically cited celebrities Cher and Nicole Richie for potty-mouth language in the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, which aired live on Fox. Richie, in an apparent scripted moment said, “Have you ever tried to get cow s–t out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f—ing simple.”

The complaint against ABC involved “NYPD Blue,” a scripted police drama, and the CBS complaint involved “The Early Show,” a news and interview program.

The high court two years ago ruled in favor of the FCC on the issue of “fleeting expletives,” concluding federal regulators have the authority to clamp down on broadcast TV networks airing isolated cases of profanity.

The court, however, refused at the time to decide whether the commission’s policy violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, ruling only on its enforcement power. The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to be reviewed again by a New York-based federal appeals court, which subsequently ruled in favor of the broadcasters.

The nine-member bench is now ready to take a broader look at the questions presented. In fact, the government helpfully sent to each justice a DVD copy of the “NYPD Blue” nudity scene. There has been no word on whether they have watched it.

The Justice Department, in its new appeal, lumped both the expletives and nudity cases together, saying the court should decide the free speech questions as one.

Explicit language is heard with greater, albeit varying, frequency on cable television, the Internet, and satellite radio, which do not use public airwaves. But the federal government is charged with responding to viewer complaints when “indecent” language and images reach broadcast television and radio, which is subject to greater regulation.

That is especially relevant during daytime and early evening hours, when larger numbers of families and younger viewers may be watching.

The FCC formally reversed its policy in March 2004 to declare even a single use of an expletive could be illegal. In response, a voluntary rating system used by all television networks was revised to warn viewers when material that might be offensive will be aired.

The Arguments

Family rights groups say the TV networks and their cable cousins need to be sent a strong message.

“You turn on television today, and the amount of bleeps of profane words, almost sounds like a Morse code signal. There hardly are any safe harbors today, on broadcast television, for children and families,” said Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, which helps families make “informed television viewing decisions.”

“How does more shock, more f-bombs, more indecency serve the public interest, especially when they know children are watching,” he said.

But the networks and their programming partners worry the FCC policies are “chilling” their speech, forcing them to make creative compromises, for fear of sanction.

“When preparing scripts or song lyrics, they now have to concern themselves with whether something can get airplay, whether their best lines can make it on the screen. That inhibits artistic creativity,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, who heads the Media Access Project, a law firm representing actors, producers, writers and musicians. “The FCC’s attempt to broaden its scope has created uncertainty, has created circumstances that force broadcasters to censor themselves needlessly and at the expense of the First Amendment.

Time Warner — the parent company of CNN — filed a supporting amicus brief in the high court dispute two years ago. The company is part owner of the CW broadcast network and operates several cable networks.

The Stakes

For families like the Dillards, there are no easy answers. Nell and Matt admit they sometimes disagree on what their boys should be watching.

“He as a typical guy may think it’s OK — some of the potty humor and guy humor — that I think they don’t need to be exposed to quite yet,” Nell said about certain shows.

Matt adds, “We do have blockers in place that prevent the worst cases, but there are ways to get around that, from the kids’ perspective and by the content providers.” The couple says parental controls and program ratings are not tools that are comfortably reliable and dependable.

The Dillards say they maintain ultimate responsibility, but appreciate the fact the government maintains some regulatory control over broadcasts, supplementing their own monitoring.

“It’s a business and they (broadcast networks) want advertisers and viewers. They have these cable stations they’re competing with, so I think they’re are going to push it as far as they can,” Nell said. “If you expect a show is going to be rated TV-14, you want to know there is an institution standing there to make sure the network will provide that kind of show, and if they don’t, then the FCC can come in and do what they do.”

But, she admits, “It’s hard for us sometimes, and you find you’re sort of giving in a little bit with each time you let them (the children) watch something a little different.”

The case is Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations Inc. (10-1293).

The scandal, they say, is an opportunity to raise awareness of — and, they hope, objection to — media consolidation at a time when the American government is reviewing the rules that govern how much companies like News Corporation, Comcast and the Walt Disney Company can own.

“For those of us who’ve been warning about the dangers of too much media power concentrated in too few corporate hands, this scandal is a godsend,” said Jeff Cohen, the founding director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College.

The scandal is also giving Democratic lawmakers an opportunity to call for more attention to the practices of such companies.

Representative Bobby Rush, a Democrat of Illinois and a past critic of Mr. Murdoch, questioned in an interview whether the media mogul had been allowed to amass too much media power. “We can’t forget the fundamental tenet of media ownership in the United States. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege. And it’s a privilege based on trust and responsibility,” he said.

Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat of Wisconsin, said that along with media consolidation, the scandal raised questions about “privacy expectations in the digital world” and about how “we support freedom of the press while ensuring the integrity and truthfulness of the press.”

There are few if any immediate threats to Mr. Murdoch’s American portfolio, which includes the Fox network, two dozen local television stations, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and the 20th Century Fox movie studio. The Federal Communications Commission signaled last week that it regarded the hacking scandal as isolated to Britain.

But the scandal in Britain could influence the F.C.C. review of media ownership rules, especially if there is perceptible public discord about powerful media moguls like Mr. Murdoch.

The discord is already evident in Britain, where politicians have talked openly about considering new laws that would lead to a breakup of the News Corporation, which owns 39 percent of British Sky Broadcasting as well as numerous newspapers there.

In the United States, politicians have called for investigations into whether News Corporation entities hacked into the phones of Americans, including the victims of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is now investigating; on Tuesday, Mr. Murdoch said that he was aware of no evidence that any 9/11 American victims had been affected.

But media reform groups like Free Press, which advocates for more diversity in media ownership, say their interest extends far beyond any single investigation.

“I think this is the moment to contend with the serious damage the Murdoch empire has done to our media system over the past few decades,” Craig Aaron, the head of that group, said last week.

The 2004 book “The New Media Monopoly” by Ben H. Bagdikian found that more than half of the radio and television stations, daily newspapers, magazines, publishers and movie studios in the United States were owned by five companies. In January, in the most recent case of consolidation, the government approved a bid by Comcast to take control of NBC Universal.

Proponents of media mergers say such combinations improve consumer access to news, information and entertainment. They say the Internet has fostered competition, creating new choices for consumers.

Groups like Free Press say the opposite — that such combinations reduce the country’s journalistic corps and decrease the diversity of voices in print and on the air. Mr. Aaron said he sensed that most Americans were aware of big media brands like Fox and NBC but unaware that their owners also controlled dozens of other brands. Media companies present an obstacle to awareness: “Most media outlets don’t like to cover themselves.”

But “when people find out just how much those companies own, they are worried about it and want to know more,” he said, adding that the who-owns-what chart was the most popular feature on the Free Press Web site.

This week, the F.C.C. declined to comment on the status of its ownership review, which is supposed to assess whether the existing rules are effectively promoting diversity, localism and competition. Earlier this month, an appeals court upheld most of the steps that the commission took in 2007 to loosen ownership rules, but it rejected on procedural grounds one rule that enabled more companies to own a newspaper and a station in the same local market.

Cable outlets like Fox News — the scourge of liberals and a symbol of Mr. Murdoch’s political power — are not under the purview of the F.C.C. or its ownership review, but the News Corporation’s 27 local stations are, because each is dependent on a federal license for use of the public airwaves.

License revocations are extremely rare, and analysts said they did not anticipate problems for the stations as a result of the hacking scandal. But an F.C.C. provision assessing the character of a station owner could be invoked by the News Corporation’s opponents when the company’s licenses for Fox and MyNetwork stations come up for renewal.

The broader problem for Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Aaron suggested, is that he “had an air of invincibility” before the scandal became one of the most talked-about news stories in Britain and the United States. “Whatever happens now, that’s gone,” he said.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the public interest group Media Access Project, said he doubted that loyal viewers of Fox News, a News Corporation property, would change their views.

But, he added, “a much larger group of people have an instinctive mistrust of powerful media, and they understand that consolidation of media ownership is not good for democracy.”

“For better or worse,” Mr. Schwartzman said, “News Corporation’s misdeeds will fuel that skepticism.”

Watch the video of the panel discussion at http://www.pff.org/events/Can_Government_Help_Save_the_Press/index.html.

* Comprehensive 2002 Media Ownership Proceeding in the FCC
* Newspaper Broadcast Ownership Rule
* Local Radio Ownership Rule
* Local Television Ownership Rule
* Dual Networks Rule

Table of Contents:
* Background
* FCC Order and Commissioner Statements
* FCC NPRM and Commissioner Statements
* FCC Media Ownership Working Group Studies and Access to Study Data
* Public Interest Response to FCC Proceeding

Background
This proceeding combined previous FCC proceedings and directives from several court decisions. This review process is required by law resulting from a provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 202(h), that requires the FCC to review its media ownership rules every 2 years. This spring in a case called Fox Television v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that in every review the FCC must re-justify every major ownership rule or strike it from the books.
The FCC proceeding will consider the following existing rules (some of which were already under consideration in other proceedings):
* National Broadcast Ownership Cap – limits the ability of any entity to have an ownership interest in broadcast licensees covering more than 35% of the country (remanded by the D.C. Circuit in Fox Television v. FCC).
* Dual Network Rule – Prevents major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) from owning interests in each other.
* Newspaper Broadcast Cross-ownership – Prevents an entity from owning a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same market.
* “Duopoly” Rule — limits the number of broadcast stations an entity can own in any given market (remanded by D.C. Cir. in Sinclair v. FCC).
* Local radio competition limits — examines the number of radio stations an entity may own in a local area.

FCC Order and Commissioner Statements:
FCC Releases Text of Report and Order Setting Limits on Media Concentration
* Report & Order
* Erratum 7/14/03
* Attachment
* Chairman Powell Statement
* Commissioner Abernathy Statement
* Commissioner Copps Statement
* Commissioner Martin Statement
* Commissioner Adelstein Statement
* Commissioner Adelstein 7-2-03 News Release
* News Release & Statements Issued After Commission Meeting June 2nd.
FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Commissioner Statements:
* Read the Commission’s press release on this proceeding.
* Commissioner Copps’ separate statement.

* Commissioner Martin’s separate statement.
After the FCC released its studies (see below), it asked for comment on the studies and the NPRM by December 2, 2002 and reply comments by January 2,2003. After repeated requests for additional time, this deadline was extended by 30 days but no more. The new deadlines were: comments due January 2; reply comments due February 3.
* FCC Order granting 30 day extension

* Commissioner Copps’ dissent arguing a longer extension is warranted.

* For information about the public interest community’s response, see below.

FCC Media Ownership Working Group Studies and Access to Data
On October 1, 2002, the FCC released a series of studies and analyses that would provide a basis for its media ownership proceeding.
* Titles, Authors, and Links to all 12 Studies

* FCC Public Notice Seeking Comment on Studies

* FCC Press Release On Studies

* Read the full text of the NPRM.

Getting Public Access to the Data
The FCC did not grant access to the underlying data in the studies. MAP asked the FCC to grant the public access to the data. On November 5, 2002, the FCC granted a 30 day extension and granted the public access to all the underlying data, with significant limits, in the 2002 Biennial Review proceeding.
Terms of Public Access to Data
* The public will have access, and will be able to manipulate the data.
* The data can only be accessed on site at the FCC and it must stay on site.
* Any results produced from manipulating the data must also stay on site.
* The FCC also is making the authors of the studies available to help members of the public use the software and understand their analysis.
* To access the data, a person was required to sign a protective order agreeing to keep the data secret, and then go to the FCC’s public reference room and use their computer to look at and manipulate the data.
FCC Material on Granting Access to Data
* FCC public notice explaining actions.

* Protective order that individuals must sign if they want to access data.

Public Interest Responses to FCC Proceeding
Here are MAP’s materials and other selected materials.
* On December 4, 2002, Children Now lead a coalition of children’s experts criticizing the FCC for ignoring the impact of media ownership on children, and demanding a meeting with Chairman Powell.
* On December 16, 2002, MAP ally Consumer Federation of America releases comprehensive analysis supporting media ownership limits.
* On December 18, 2002, a large number of major media unions issued a critique of the FCC’s 12 media ownership studies.
* On January 2, 2003, CFA and other allies including MAP submitted comprehensive comments to the FCC. (Complete comments are 296 pages, 837 KB). Read the executive summary.
* Read CFA and CU’s detailed reply comments filed on February 3, 2003.
* AFL-CIO Executive Council Statement, Media Monopolies: A Threat to American Democracy, February 26, 2003 .
* On May 2, 2003 MAP cosigned a letter with Consumers Union and other public interest groups in support of the resolution. (The letter uses an older reference number, H. Res. 212. This was changed when Hinchey introduced a new version of the resolution. The correct number for the pending resolution is Resolution 218).
* On May 6, 2003, Rep. Hinchey (D-NY) introduced a resolution, H. Res. 218, calling upon the FCC to delay any action on the media ownership rules until the American people are fully informed of the possible impact of any such action and until the FCC conducts a more careful study. MAP fully supports this resolution. Those interested in supporting the resolution should take the opportunity to write their Representative asking them to support H.Res. 218 and should circulate this notice to other interested parties. Please redistribute the text of this resolution to any relevant mailing lists.
* May 29, MAP filed a detailed letter explaining why the UHF discount is no longer justified.
* On June 2, the FCC announces its changes to media ownership rules. MAP Press Release.
MAP Press Background.
* Common Cause Action Kit opposing FCC decision
Hearings and Fora Around the Country on Media Ownership
Commissioner Michael Copps asked Chairman Powell to discuss the media ownership issue in fora or hearings around the country. The Chairman initially refused, and eventually relented and held one official hearing. Public interest groups around the country held their own hearings and invited FCC Commissioners.
* Columbia Law School announces a forum on Media Ownership to be held January 16, 2003.
* USC Annenberg schedule of hearings.
* FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein announced more details about the Seattle hearing to be held March 7, 2003. University of Washington Shilder Center for Law, Commerce, and Technology will host.
* The Benton Foundation convened a hearing in Arizona, at which MAP’s Andrew Jay Schwartzman spoke.
* The FCC hosted one official hearing in Richmond, VA, at which MAP’s Andrew Jay Schwartzman testified. (02/27/03)

The “Newspaper-Broadcast Ownership” Rule
The newspaper broadcast cross ownership rule prohibits a newspaper from owning a broadcast station in the same local area and vice versa. The FCC adopted this rule in 1975. The Supreme Court upheld the rule against constitutional attack in a case called NCCB v. FCC.. At the time the FCC adopted the rule, it allowed many existing newspaper-broadcast combinations to keep their combinations. Many of these “grandfathered” combinations continue to exist today.
In September 2001, the FCC initiated a proceeding to relax or eliminate the rule. (See FCC’s Press Release describing the proceeding and the text of FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
Media Access Project and other public interest organizations filed at the FCC in favor of preserving the rule:
* Executive Summary of 2001 Comments by Media Access Project and other public interest organizations (7 pages).
* 2001 Comments of Media Access Project and other public interest organizations.
* 2002 Reply Comments of Media Access Project and other public interest organizations.
* April 2002 Supplemental Filing Report by Professor Andrew Calabrese of University of Colorado analyzing industry studies. April 17, 2002
Other Comments in support of rule:
* AFL-CIO 2001 Comments
* AFL-CIO 2002 Reply Comments
* Attachment to AFL-CIO Reply Comments, An Analysis of the Newspaper Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule, by Prof. Douglas Gomery (alternate link to Prof. Gomery’s paper).
* United Church of Christ 2001 Comments (represented by IPR).
* United Church of Christ 2002 Reply Comments (represented by IPR).
Other resources on the Newspaper Broadcast rule:
* AFL-CIO supports Newspaper Broadcast Rule, sponsors forum.
* Newspaper Guild believes the Newspaper Broadcast Rule helps journalistic quality.
* Seattle Times Owner Frank Blethen supports the newspaper broadcast rule. A Voice In the Wilderness, Editor & Publisher, March 18, 2002
In 1997 the FCC considered relaxing or repealing the rule, but it determined the rule should remain in place.
* FCC’s Inquiry on cross-ownership restrictions between newspapers and radio stations. (also in WordPerfect Format)
1997 FCC Filings in Support of the Newspaper Broadcast Rule:
* Black Citizens for Fair Media 1997 Comments. BCFM 1997 Comments part 2.
* Black Citizens for Fair Media 1997 Reply Comments
* Minority and Media Telecommunications Council 1997 Filing
* Benton Foundation 1997 Newspaper Broadcast Comments, and Part 2

Local Radio Ownership
The local radio ownership rule allows ownership of up to 8 radio stations (on a sliding scale) in a local market, depending on total number of stations in market. Congress repealed the national radio ownership cap in 1996, thus, this is the last significant rule promoting diverse national radio ownership, with the exception of the new low power radio service.
In November 2001, the FCC initiated a proceeding to reconsider its local radio ownership limits. (See FCC Local Radio Ownership Press Release and Full text of FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
* The Georgetown University Law Center student law clinic filed
comments on behalf of the United Church of Christ in this proceeding on May 8, 2002.
* MAP filed comments on May 9, 2002 showing that diversity is decreasing in radio.
Additional resources on radio consolidation:
* “Mega Hurts: Clear Channel’s Big Radio Ways Are Getting a Lot of Static These Days” by Paul Farhi Washington Post, May 29, 2002, p. C1

Local Television Ownership Rules
This rule limits ownership to two television stations in same market only if that market has 8 independent voices, and, one of the two stations is not among the top four stations in that market. Sometimes this rule is referred to as the “duopoly” rule.

In August 1999 the FCC adopted the present rule. In the past, no owner was allowed to possess more than one local television station. (See August 1999 FCC Order .) The 1999 decision took an important step with respect to “LMAs” or local marketing agreements. LMAs, prior to 1999, were a method used by television station owners to control a station but avoid the FCC’s ownership limits. After 1999, LMAs will be considered attributable (see above for more information about attribution rules). At the same time the FCC closed this loophole in the local TV rules, it also adopted the present rule, which increases the number of television stations a single owner can control in a local market.
This rule was challenged in court. See MAP’s court proceedings page.
Filings on local television ownership rule and similar rules:
* 1997 Comments of MAP, et al., on these ownership notices, filed by MAP and the Institute for Public Representation (summary of comments). Second Round of Comments of MAP, et al. (summary)
* Comments of Black Citizens for a Fair Media, et al., on the proposal, in these ownership notices, to repeal the radio-television cross-ownership limits. Filed by the Institute for Public Representation and MAP.

Dual Networks Rule
Since the earliest days of broadcasting, FCC rules in effect prohibited a single entity from operating two broadcast networks. In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress relaxed this rule to allow major networks (such as ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) to create new networks. In 2001, the FCC further relaxed the rule by allowing a major network to purchase or merge with an emerging network (such as WB or UPN). The major networks are still prohibited from merging with one another.
* October 2000 Reply Comments filed by MAP supporting retention of the rule.
* FCC May 2001 Order amending rule to allow one of the major television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX) to own one of the emerging television networks (WB and UPN). This change allowed CBS to purchase Viacom, which operates UPN.
Media Ownership Limits Facing Repeal at the FCC* Comprehensive 2002 Media Ownership Proceeding in the FCC* Newspaper Broadcast Ownership Rule* Local Radio Ownership Rule* Local Television Ownership Rule * Dual Networks Rule
Comprehensive 2002 Media Ownership Proceeding in the FCC
On September 12, 2002, the FCC started a proceeding to review all the media ownership rules currently in law. The FCC completed this proceeding in a vote that took place on June 2, 2003.
Read background on June 2nd decision. Read MAP’s press release on the June 2nd decision.
The FCC released the full text of the FCC’s decision on July 2nd. This proposal was a tremendous blow to democracy and civic discourse. For an explanation of the importantace of these rules, see Cheryl Leanza and Harold Feld’s article “More than a Toaster with Pictures: Defending Media Ownership Limits,” in Fall 2003 issue of Communications Lawyer.
The wave of public protest that was engendered around the country against the FCC’s rules continued after the decision was issued. Congress is considering overturning all or part of the decision.
Table of Contents:* Background* FCC Order and Commissioner Statements* FCC NPRM and Commissioner Statements* FCC Media Ownership Working Group Studies and Access to Study Data* Public Interest Response to FCC Proceeding

Background
This proceeding combined previous FCC proceedings and directives from several court decisions. This review process is required by law resulting from a provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 202(h), that requires the FCC to review its media ownership rules every 2 years. This spring in a case called Fox Television v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that in every review the FCC must re-justify every major ownership rule or strike it from the books.
The FCC proceeding will consider the following existing rules (some of which were already under consideration in other proceedings):* National Broadcast Ownership Cap – limits the ability of any entity to have an ownership interest in broadcast licensees covering more than 35% of the country (remanded by the D.C. Circuit in Fox Television v. FCC).* Dual Network Rule – Prevents major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) from owning interests in each other.* Newspaper Broadcast Cross-ownership – Prevents an entity from owning a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same market.* “Duopoly” Rule — limits the number of broadcast stations an entity can own in any given market (remanded by D.C. Cir. in Sinclair v. FCC).* Local radio competition limits — examines the number of radio stations an entity may own in a local area.
FCC Order and Commissioner Statements:FCC Releases Text of Report and Order Setting Limits on Media Concentration* Report & Order* Erratum 7/14/03* Attachment* Chairman Powell Statement* Commissioner Abernathy Statement* Commissioner Copps Statement* Commissioner Martin Statement* Commissioner Adelstein Statement* Commissioner Adelstein 7-2-03 News Release* News Release & Statements Issued After Commission Meeting June 2nd.
FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Commissioner Statements:* Read the Commission’s press release on this proceeding.* Commissioner Copps’ separate statement.

* Commissioner Martin’s separate statement.
After the FCC released its studies (see below), it asked for comment on the studies and the NPRM by December 2, 2002 and reply comments by January 2,2003. After repeated requests for additional time, this deadline was extended by 30 days but no more. The new deadlines were: comments due January 2; reply comments due February 3. * FCC Order granting 30 day extension

* Commissioner Copps’ dissent arguing a longer extension is warranted.

* For information about the public interest community’s response, see below.
FCC Media Ownership Working Group Studies and Access to Data
On October 1, 2002, the FCC released a series of studies and analyses that would provide a basis for its media ownership proceeding. * Titles, Authors, and Links to all 12 Studies

* FCC Public Notice Seeking Comment on Studies

* FCC Press Release On Studies

* Read the full text of the NPRM.

Getting Public Access to the Data
The FCC did not grant access to the underlying data in the studies. MAP asked the FCC to grant the public access to the data. On November 5, 2002, the FCC granted a 30 day extension and granted the public access to all the underlying data, with significant limits, in the 2002 Biennial Review proceeding.
Terms of Public Access to Data* The public will have access, and will be able to manipulate the data.* The data can only be accessed on site at the FCC and it must stay on site.* Any results produced from manipulating the data must also stay on site.* The FCC also is making the authors of the studies available to help members of the public use the software and understand their analysis.* To access the data, a person was required to sign a protective order agreeing to keep the data secret, and then go to the FCC’s public reference room and use their computer to look at and manipulate the data.
FCC Material on Granting Access to Data* FCC public notice explaining actions.

* Protective order that individuals must sign if they want to access data.

Public Interest Responses to FCC Proceeding
Here are MAP’s materials and other selected materials.* On December 4, 2002, Children Now lead a coalition of children’s experts criticizing the FCC for ignoring the impact of media ownership on children, and demanding a meeting with Chairman Powell.* On December 16, 2002, MAP ally Consumer Federation of America releases comprehensive analysis supporting media ownership limits.* On December 18, 2002, a large number of major media unions issued a critique of the FCC’s 12 media ownership studies.* On January 2, 2003, CFA and other allies including MAP submitted comprehensive comments to the FCC. (Complete comments are 296 pages, 837 KB). Read the executive summary.* Read CFA and CU’s detailed reply comments filed on February 3, 2003.* AFL-CIO Executive Council Statement, Media Monopolies: A Threat to American Democracy, February 26, 2003 .* On May 2, 2003 MAP cosigned a letter with Consumers Union and other public interest groups in support of the resolution. (The letter uses an older reference number, H. Res. 212. This was changed when Hinchey introduced a new version of the resolution. The correct number for the pending resolution is Resolution 218).* On May 6, 2003, Rep. Hinchey (D-NY) introduced a resolution, H. Res. 218, calling upon the FCC to delay any action on the media ownership rules until the American people are fully informed of the possible impact of any such action and until the FCC conducts a more careful study. MAP fully supports this resolution. Those interested in supporting the resolution should take the opportunity to write their Representative asking them to support H.Res. 218 and should circulate this notice to other interested parties. Please redistribute the text of this resolution to any relevant mailing lists.* May 29, MAP filed a detailed letter explaining why the UHF discount is no longer justified.* On June 2, the FCC announces its changes to media ownership rules. MAP Press Release.
MAP Press Background. * Common Cause Action Kit opposing FCC decision
Hearings and Fora Around the Country on Media Ownership
Commissioner Michael Copps asked Chairman Powell to discuss the media ownership issue in fora or hearings around the country. The Chairman initially refused, and eventually relented and held one official hearing. Public interest groups around the country held their own hearings and invited FCC Commissioners. * Columbia Law School announces a forum on Media Ownership to be held January 16, 2003.* USC Annenberg schedule of hearings.* FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein announced more details about the Seattle hearing to be held March 7, 2003. University of Washington Shilder Center for Law, Commerce, and Technology will host.* The Benton Foundation convened a hearing in Arizona, at which MAP’s Andrew Jay Schwartzman spoke.* The FCC hosted one official hearing in Richmond, VA, at which MAP’s Andrew Jay Schwartzman testified. (02/27/03)
The “Newspaper-Broadcast Ownership” Rule
The newspaper broadcast cross ownership rule prohibits a newspaper from owning a broadcast station in the same local area and vice versa. The FCC adopted this rule in 1975. The Supreme Court upheld the rule against constitutional attack in a case called NCCB v. FCC.. At the time the FCC adopted the rule, it allowed many existing newspaper-broadcast combinations to keep their combinations. Many of these “grandfathered” combinations continue to exist today.
In September 2001, the FCC initiated a proceeding to relax or eliminate the rule. (See FCC’s Press Release describing the proceeding and the text of FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
Media Access Project and other public interest organizations filed at the FCC in favor of preserving the rule:* Executive Summary of 2001 Comments by Media Access Project and other public interest organizations (7 pages).* 2001 Comments of Media Access Project and other public interest organizations.* 2002 Reply Comments of Media Access Project and other public interest organizations.* April 2002 Supplemental Filing Report by Professor Andrew Calabrese of University of Colorado analyzing industry studies. April 17, 2002
Other Comments in support of rule:* AFL-CIO 2001 Comments* AFL-CIO 2002 Reply Comments* Attachment to AFL-CIO Reply Comments, An Analysis of the Newspaper Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule, by Prof. Douglas Gomery (alternate link to Prof. Gomery’s paper).* United Church of Christ 2001 Comments (represented by IPR).* United Church of Christ 2002 Reply Comments (represented by IPR).
Other resources on the Newspaper Broadcast rule:* AFL-CIO supports Newspaper Broadcast Rule, sponsors forum.* Newspaper Guild believes the Newspaper Broadcast Rule helps journalistic quality.* Seattle Times Owner Frank Blethen supports the newspaper broadcast rule. A Voice In the Wilderness, Editor & Publisher, March 18, 2002
In 1997 the FCC considered relaxing or repealing the rule, but it determined the rule should remain in place.* FCC’s Inquiry on cross-ownership restrictions between newspapers and radio stations. (also in WordPerfect Format)
1997 FCC Filings in Support of the Newspaper Broadcast Rule:* Black Citizens for Fair Media 1997 Comments. BCFM 1997 Comments part 2.* Black Citizens for Fair Media 1997 Reply Comments* Minority and Media Telecommunications Council 1997 Filing* Benton Foundation 1997 Newspaper Broadcast Comments, and Part 2
Local Radio Ownership
The local radio ownership rule allows ownership of up to 8 radio stations (on a sliding scale) in a local market, depending on total number of stations in market. Congress repealed the national radio ownership cap in 1996, thus, this is the last significant rule promoting diverse national radio ownership, with the exception of the new low power radio service.
In November 2001, the FCC initiated a proceeding to reconsider its local radio ownership limits. (See FCC Local Radio Ownership Press Release and Full text of FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).* The Georgetown University Law Center student law clinic filed comments on behalf of the United Church of Christ in this proceeding on May 8, 2002.* MAP filed comments on May 9, 2002 showing that diversity is decreasing in radio.
Additional resources on radio consolidation:* “Mega Hurts: Clear Channel’s Big Radio Ways Are Getting a Lot of Static These Days” by Paul Farhi Washington Post, May 29, 2002, p. C1
Local Television Ownership Rules
This rule limits ownership to two television stations in same market only if that market has 8 independent voices, and, one of the two stations is not among the top four stations in that market. Sometimes this rule is referred to as the “duopoly” rule.

In August 1999 the FCC adopted the present rule. In the past, no owner was allowed to possess more than one local television station. (See August 1999 FCC Order .) The 1999 decision took an important step with respect to “LMAs” or local marketing agreements. LMAs, prior to 1999, were a method used by television station owners to control a station but avoid the FCC’s ownership limits. After 1999, LMAs will be considered attributable (see above for more information about attribution rules). At the same time the FCC closed this loophole in the local TV rules, it also adopted the present rule, which increases the number of television stations a single owner can control in a local market.
This rule was challenged in court. See MAP’s court proceedings page.
Filings on local television ownership rule and similar rules:* 1997 Comments of MAP, et al., on these ownership notices, filed by MAP and the Institute for Public Representation (summary of comments). Second Round of Comments of MAP, et al. (summary)* Comments of Black Citizens for a Fair Media, et al., on the proposal, in these ownership notices, to repeal the radio-television cross-ownership limits. Filed by the Institute for Public Representation and MAP.
Dual Networks Rule
Since the earliest days of broadcasting, FCC rules in effect prohibited a single entity from operating two broadcast networks. In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress relaxed this rule to allow major networks (such as ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) to create new networks. In 2001, the FCC further relaxed the rule by allowing a major network to purchase or merge with an emerging network (such as WB or UPN). The major networks are still prohibited from merging with one another.* October 2000 Reply Comments filed by MAP supporting retention of the rule.* FCC May 2001 Order amending rule to allow one of the major television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX) to own one of the emerging television networks (WB and UPN). This change allowed CBS to purchase Viacom, which operates UPN.

Please let us know if you find new resources to add to the list.

Supreme Court Decisions

• Cornell University maintains a comprehensive list, indexed by name, of all decisions since 1990, and selected historic decisions.
• FedWorld published by the Department of Commerce has searchable collections of over 7000 decisions between 1937 and 1975.

Federal Appeals Courts Decisions

• Federal Courts Finder: an excellent site maintained by Emory Law School, has decisions since 1995.

Executive and Legislative Branches

• House Committee on Energy and Commerce
  • Telecommunications issues handled by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
• Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
• THOMAS: Search Senate and House legislation and committee reports.
• The White House

Government Agencies

• Federal Communications Commission
• Federal Trade Commission
• U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
• National Telecommunications and Information Administration within the Department of Commerce

General Reference and Index

• Law.com: Features articles and documents about hot issues, a lawyer search function, recent opinions of note, and discussion groups about many fields of law
• GPO Access: Search text of bills, the FY 1997 budget, Congressional Record, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, legislative histories, hearings, and more
• The Law Engine: Dazzlingly comprehensive list of links for legal research resources on the web. Federal, state, legislative materials, education, government agencies, dictionaries, news of the world…it’s all here!
• Law Links by Lexis’ Counsel Connect. Comprehensive research links in all fields of law, for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
• ‘Lectric Law Library This extensive collection has cases, laws, and articles – and a good sense of humor — about many fields of law.
• The Legislative Branch The Library of Congress maintains this general resource about Congress and the federal legislature.
• Parrot Media Network Searchable directories of radio, TV, cable, and newspapers.
• Virtual Law Library: Indiana University Law School’s corner of the W3 Virtual Library.

Public Interest Organizations

• The ACLU is active in <A HREF=”http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/”>free speech</A>, such as V-Chip provision and censorship of the electronic media, and “‘cyber-liberties,’”:http://www.aclu.org/cyberliberties/ such as online speech and privacy.
• The Benton Foundation
• Center for Digital Democracy
• Center for Democracy and Technology: Organized and led the largest coalition to challenge the “Communications Decency Act,” and has led the fight for a strong encryption policy.
• The Center for Social Media: has a number of resources including the “Digital Futures: A Need-to-Know Policy Guide for Independent Filmmakers.”
• Consumer Federation of America
• Consumer Project on Technology: Specializing in telecommunications issues such as ISDN pricing, direct broadcast satellite ownership, and media concentration.
• Consumers Union
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Electronic Privacy Information Center: A public interest research center protecting privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values in the information age.
• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: A national media watch group offering well-documented criticism in an effort to correct media bias and imbalance.
• Free Press: A national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates.
• Future of Music Coalition: A not-for-profit collaboration between members of the music, technology, public policy and intellectual property law communities.
• Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center.
• Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: The nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil rights coalition is working to raise public awareness about the connections between media and communications policy and concerns about social justice and equal opportunity.
• Media Alliance
• Media Channel
• Media Policy Initiative at the New America Foundation
• Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation
• Our Media Voice: Campaign for Accountability to establish a citizen’s media rights education campaign, national coalition for media reform, a clearinghouse for media activism and broadcast viewer feedback forums.
• Reporters Committee on Freedom in the Press: A nonprofit organization dedicated to providing free legal help to reporters and news organizations. It is a rich source for FOIA information
• Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation
• Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press: Information on media democracy and women’s media, including an online international Directory of Women’s Media.

Telecommunications Law

• Telecommunications Act of 1996: Online and indexed. (The Wisconsin Division for Libraries and Community Learning also maintains an online index which has the legislative history of the Act).

Trade Associations

• American Library Association
• Association of America’s Public Television Stations
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting
• Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
• Electronic Industries Alliance
• Motion Picture Association of America
• National Association of Broadcasters
• National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
• National Cable &amp; Telecommunications Association
• National Education Association
• National Federation of Community Broadcasters
• Recording Industry Association of America
• Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association
• United States Internet Provider Association
• United States Telecom Association

*Forbes* Brian Wingfield and Louis Hau: December 18, 2007

bq. “It is hard to understand why the chairman has been so stubborn about pushing through such an extreme and unjustified change in rules which have long protected the public’s right to have access to diverse sources of information,” Media Access Project President and Chief Executive Andrew Jay Schwartzman said in a statement.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1205Statesman.pdf”>Minority concerns fuel push to delay FCC consolidation vote</a>

*Austin American-Statesman* Whitney Boyd: December 5, 2007

bq. As president and CEO of Media Access Project, a media advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., Schwartzman said the new rules are vaguely packaged and the public is unaware of the significance of the changes. &quot;These rules appear more benign than what they really are,&quot; Schwartzman said. &quot;The FCC has portrayed it as a modest change when in fact it is a very major change.&quot;

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1205Editor.pdf”>NAA’s Sturm Tells House Panel FCC Cross-Ownership Proposal Offers Little Help For Newspapers</a>

*Editor & Publisher* Mark Fitzgerald: December 5, 2007

bq. But at the same hearing, Media Access Project President and CEO Andrew Jay Schwartzman argued that Martin’s proposal “deceptively packaged to conceal the fact that it is actually a radical repeal of existing rules.” The FCC, he argued, “is rushing to judgment based on a manipulated and flawed research record. The commission continues to suppress information, has failed to comply with the peer review requirements of the Data Quality Act and evidently intends to adopt a rule which cannot possibly take into account thousands of pages of new information which has just been filed.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1203B&C.pdf”>Supreme Court Extends Deadline for Profane Responses</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: December 3, 2007

bq. The extension applies to all of the parties including MAP, which hopes to file jointly with Fox and will oppose cert, according to MAP president Andrew J. Schwartzman.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1203BroadcastEngineering.pdf”>Cable lobby acts in regards to Martin’s regulatory initiative</a>

*Broadcast Engineering* December 3, 2007

bq. And the lobbyists are ready. “It’s a textbook example of how a sophisticated trade association can mobilize resources on short notice and stave off a major defeat, Andrew Schwartzman told the Washington Post. Schwartzman is president of the Media Access Project, a consumer advocacy group opposed to the cable industry position.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1203FinancialWeek.pdf”>Verizon boosts access to wireless network</a>

*Financial Week*  Matthew Scott: December 3, 2007

bq. Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, also noted that Verizon would not guarantee that all devices would be able to access all services, and “without the certainty that comes from making open platforms a right rather than a privilege at the mercy of a provider’s business plan, innovation and choice in the wireless world will continue to lag behind Europe and Asia.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1201LATimes.pdf”>Airwave sale sparks a scramble</a>

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera & Jessica Guynn: December 1, 2007

bq. “This auction potentially opens up mobile computing from something that’s very expensive and very limited to something that comes into everyday use,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that has pushed for more open use of the airwaves.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1130CNet.pdf”>Net neutrality may not resolve Comcast vs. BitTorrent</a>

*CNet News.com* Anne Broache: November 30, 2007

bq. Harold Feld, senior vice president for the Media Access Project, which lobbies for Net neutrality laws, is also skeptical about whether Rep. Ed Markey’s legislation would do much. If Comcast announced, “‘We are absolutely going to prohibit peer-to-peer on our network or even manage our network so when we reach some unspecified capacity restraint, we’re going to start messing with everybody’s BitTorrent uploads, but it’ll be totally random…’ that is arguably permissible under the Markey bill,” Feld said.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1130DowJones.pdf”>FCC Waivers Given Tribune; Deal May Close Before ‘08</a>

*CNN Money* Corey Boles, Dow Jones Newswire: November 30, 2007

bq. Andrew Schwartzman, president and CEO of public interest group Media Access Project, criticized the FCC’s move. “The fact that this action was expected makes it no less outrageous,” he said in a statement. “Tribune was given more than it requested in a decision which is deceptively packaged to make it seem more reasonable than it really is.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1129NYT.pdf”>Fox Station Challenged on Renewal of License</a>

*New York Times* Elizabeth Dwoskin: November 29, 2007

bq. Federal law prohibits most companies from owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same metropolitan area. But Fox is one of 11 companies nationwide that hold a temporary waiver of the prohibition, said Andrew J. Schwartzman, president of the nonprofit Media Access Project.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1129TheRecord.pdf”>WWOR license under fire</a>

*The Record* Kevin G. DeMarrais: November 29, 2007

bq. “Based on the evidence provided by Voice for New Jersey [another opponent] and the obvious branding of Channel 9 as a station dedicated to New Yorkers, the commission cannot seriously conclude that Channel 9 broadcasts in the interest of New Jersey residents,” Desai said.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1128TVWeek.pdf”>Martin Proposes Waiver in Tribune Deal</a>

*Television Week* Ira Teinowitz: November 28, 2007

bq. Andy Schwartzman, director of the Media Access Project, said he was worried the waiver would open the door to more deals, including some in smaller markets. “My initial reaction is not positive. Count me troubled,” he said. “It’s hard to justify giving this to the Tribune and not everyone else”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1128Bloomberg.pdf”>Comcast, Cable Stocks Gain as FCC Puts Off New Rules</a>

*Bloomberg.com* Molly Peterson: November 28, 2007

bq. Consumer advocates say the FCC should expand its oversight to spur competition among pay-TV providers. Existing data “strongly support” the finding that cable companies have surpassed the 70/70 threshold, said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Washington-based Media Access Project.

h4. <a href=”http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/27/fcc_watching_cable_tv#”>FCC watching cable TV closely</a>

*Marketplace Radio* November 27, 2007

bq. “The Media Access Project’s Andrew Schwartzman says companies breached that threshold several years ago: It’s long past time when the FCC should be cracking down on cable ownership, diversity of programming and making the cable industry more responsive.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1119LATimes.pdf”>Bad reviews pile up for FCC chief’s plan</a>

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: November 19, 2007

bq. “The way in which Martin has handled this has reignited the citizen groups,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project. “Their membership is riled up and there is a real sense of ‘They’re doing it to us again.’ “

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1118LATimes.pdf”>NFL calls screen play, or is it an end around?</a>

*Los Angeles Times* Greg Johnson: November 18, 2007

bq. “  Right now, the NFL clearly is the underdog in the fight against Comcast and other big cable companies,” said Harold Feld, executive vice president with Media Access, a Washington public interest group that says big cable companies are discriminating against the NFL and other independent programmers. “It’s clear that [sports networks are] getting the snot beat out of them by the big cable companies and that’s not right.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1118PeoriaStar.pdf”>Public needs FCC to step up</a>

*The Peoria Journal Star* Steve Tarter: November 18, 2007

bq. Both ideas are applauded by the Media Access Project, the Washington, D.C.-based consumer group. “We’re hoping (the rule changes) will allow more individual programs to get access on cable, especially programming for minorities and females,” said assistant director Parul Desai.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1116B&C.pdf”>Media Access Project Data Back Martin’s 70/70 Claim </a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: November 16, 2007

bq. Media Access Project Friday provided Republican Federal Communications Commission members Robert McDowell and Deborah Taylor Tate with information supporting FCC chairman Kevin Martin’s contention, based on data supplied to the FCC, that cable has met the 70/70 reregulatory threshold.

h4. <a href=”http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3526″>Things getting hot on the Comcast front</a>

*ZDNet Government Blog* Richard Koman: November 16, 2007

bq. Harold Feld of the Media Access Project told me, “At the very least, the FCC should make it clear that this is not appropriate,” but really Congress should pass net neutrality legislation. That’s what it would take, he said, so that “broadband providers will stop trying to mess with traffic”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1114AP.pdf”>FCC Chief: End Big-Market Ownership Ban</a>

*Associated Press* John Dunbar: November 14, 2007

bq. Andrew Schwartzman, president of public interest law firm Media Access Project, said the proposed rule contains a provision that “vastly liberalizes the waiver process” which could result in cross-ownership in smaller markets, a charge Martin disputed.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1113Multichannel.pdf”>Martin: Let’s Ease TV-Newspaper Rule</a>

*Multichannel* Ted Hearn: November 13, 2007

bq. Andrew Schwartzman, president the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that helped scuttle the 2003 rule, said Martin’s proposal could use some tightening. “It’s not as modest as Martin seems to be letting on,” Schwartzman said. “It greatly liberalizes the policy for granting waivers in all 210 markets in the U.S.&rdquo;

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1113DowJones.pdf”>FCC’s Martin: Only Change Cross-Ownership Rule</a>

*Dow Jones* Corey Boles: November 13, 2007

bq. But according to Andrew Schwartzman, president of the public-interest group Media Access Project, there is no case for any change to the rules. “The fundamental problem I have with the changes that Martin proposes is the notion that newspapers in the top 20 markets are moribund,” said Schwartzman. “On an operating basis, these are among some of the most profitable media properties in the country.”

h4. <a href=”http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/13/fcc#”>Reaction mixed to media ownership idea</a>

*Marketplace Radio* Bob Moon: November 13, 2007

Andrew Schwartzman heads the Media Access Project. He argues the relaxed rules for newspapers will actually reduce the diversity of news coverage for no real reason. “These are mature businesses. They’re highly profitable businesses. They’re not growing businesses, but they are not in distress.”

bq. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1113LATimes.pdf”>Do numbers add up to reregulating cable?</a>

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: November 13, 2007

bq. “These guys play fast and loose with their numbers,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, a public-interest law firm. The group last year cited unexplained changes in the statistics on the cable group’s website, where the total number of basic cable subscribers nationwide for 2005 changed from 73.2 million to 65.4 million within a few months.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1113WSJ.pdf”>Why FCC Head Aims to Broaden Access to Spare Cable Channels</a>

*Wall Street Journal* Corey Boles: November 13, 2007

bq. Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a public interest group that has long advocated the rates be reduced, said that only about 1% of cable companies’ channels are leased out. “There are scores of minority and niche programmers as well as low-powered television stations clamoring for leased access channels who have been unable to afford it until now,” said Schwartzman

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1113PhillyInquirer.pdf”>FCC Untangling Industry Norms</a>

*Philadelphia Inquirer* Bob Fernandez: November 13, 2007

bq. Schwartzman said the proposed regulations could make it cheaper for independent programmers to buy time on cable channels by lowering so-called channel lease rates. Right now, the programmers that can most afford the lease rates, he said, are shopping networks and religious groups.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1112DowJonesO.pdf”>FCC’s Martin Seen Likely To Soon Release Media-Ownership Plan</a>

*Dow Jones* Corey Boles: November 12, 2007

bq. “We don’t think any change is justified. The market data overwhelmingly shows that there’s no justification for changing the rules,” said Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a public-interest group.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1112B&C.pdf”>Martin Says FCC Has More Power to Regulate Cable</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: November 12, 2007

bq. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin says the commission plans to invoke the so-called 70/70 threshold to justify new regulations on the cable industry. That would put the deregulatory-minded Republican chairman on the same page with anti-consolidation groups like Media Access Project, (MAP) which has pushed the FCC to invoke the rule, saying the cable industry has become sufficiently dominant.

h4. <a href=”http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3509″ rel=”bookmark” title=”Permanent Link to Hands off the Internet asks FCC to look into Comcast bandwidth delays”>Hands off the Internet asks FCC to look into Comcast bandwidth delays</a>

*ZDNet Government Blog* Richard Koman: November 12, 2007

bq. Comcast, which directly competes with Verizon, would like to have a network as stable and fast as Verizon’s FIOS. But they don’t. Instead, they have a network that has serious problems keeping up with the way customers want to use it. Comcast could spend the money to upgrade to fiber the way Verizon did and actually have a network that works like Verizon’s FIOS system. But Comcast doesn’t want to do that either.

h4. <a href=”http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071112-net-neutrality-foes-back-fcc-investigation-into-comcast-traffic-blocking.html”>Net neutrality foes back FCC investigation into Comcast traffic blocking</a>

*Ars Technica* Nate Anderson: November 12, 2007

bq. “Particularly with applications tolerant of minor delays (like downloading static web pages), it was easy for cable operators to share capacity among their subscribers while claiming a very fast always on speed based on the average user load for the system,” says Feld, but notes that the system doesn’t work well when users start saturating their links by using high-bandwidth applications.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1110NYTimes.pdf”>F.C.C. Planning Rules to Open Cable Market</a>

*New York Times* Steve Labaton: November 10, 2007

bq. “The 70/70 finding is enormous,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, an advocacy organization devoted to diversity of voices and ownership that has opposed consolidation in the media. “It gives the commission a blank check to regulate an industry that Congress had largely deregulated.&rdquo;

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1110AP.pdf”>Report May Spur Oversight of Cable TV</a>

*Associated Press* John Dunbar: November 10, 2007

bq. “It’s never been invoked before,” said Andrew Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm. What powers the FCC could assume is “a matter of some dispute,” he said.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1105LATimes.pdf”>Copps, a liberal voice on the FCC, knows how to get his message out</a>

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: November 5, 2007

bq. “He’s the first FCC commissioner-rock star,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public policy law firm that has fought media consolidation.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1105B&C.pdf”>Time Running Out for Tribune</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: November 5, 2007

bq. Schwartzman opposes allowing Tribune to maintain any of the cross-ownerships post-deal, though he says there is a distinction between the grand fathered Chicago combo and the four waivers of the former Times Mirror properties. “With respect to the [Times Mirror] properties, Tribune was supposed to sell off those properties,” he says. “I have a serious problem with regulatory self-help”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1105BE.pdf”>Media ownership issue stirs industry concerns</a>

*Broadcast Engineering* November 5, 2007

bq. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, said that in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, “the number of good broadcasters is diminishing, and the number of mediocre broadcasters is increasing”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1103WashPost.pdf”>Groups Press FCC on Comcast, Net Neutrality</a>

*Washington Post.com* Kim Hart: November 3, 2007

bq. “Now we come to the acid test,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of Media Access Project. “Will the FCC, which vowed to protect our freedom to run the applications of our choice, stand up for citizens in the face of Comcast?”

h4. <a href=”http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9809263-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5″>FCC urged to stop Comcast Internet blocking</a>

*CNet News Blog* Marguerite Reardon: November 1, 2007

bq. “Last year, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and opponents of Net neutrality told Congress that the FCC has all the authority it needs to prevent exactly this sort of customer abuse by a major provider,” Harold Feld, senior vice president of Media Access Project said in a statement.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1101Washpost.pdf”>Critics Turn Out To Protest Media Consolidation</a>

*Washington Post.com* Frank Ahrens: November 1, 2007

bq. But local media still matter, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, which succeeded in overturning the FCC’s attempted ownership rules changes in 2004. “The wonderful new media platforms we now have supplement, but do not supplant, the traditional media, especially at the local level,” Schwartzman said after testifying at the hearing. “Over-the-air TV and daily newspapers are still, by far, the most important forces shaping public opinion. Democracy suffers when one company has too much influence over what happens in a community.”

h4. <a href=”http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2007/11/the-writers-str.html”>The writers’ strike and media consolidation</a>

*TV Barn*   Aaron Barnhart: November 1, 2007

bq. Fast forward a year. The FCC is still holding hearings, and voices of reason are still being politely listened to (and, I suspect, ignored). And that’s where Andy Schwartzman comes in.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1031Variety.pdf”>FCC gets earful on ownership rules</a>

*Variety* William Triplett: October 31, 2007

bq. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of watchdog group Media Access Project, pleaded similarly. Of some 2,000 broadcast stations in the U.S., he said, fewer than 800 originate any newscasts. The rest rely on syndicated feeds.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1031oB&C.pdf”>FCC Gets Earful on Media Ownership</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable*   John Eggerton: October 31, 2007

bq. Schwartzman also made a pitch not just for local programming, but for local ownership and ties to the community. “Effective local service requires institutional and personal attachments to the community,” he said in prepared testimony. “It requires a diverse work force that is capable of conveying the many different perspectives found in each community. There is no way to document the qualitative impact of having a station operated locally by individual citizens who live in the community and expect to remain there.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1031B&C.pdf”>FCC Votes Down Deals Between Cable Operators, Multiple-Dwelling Units</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable*   John Eggerton: October 31, 2007

bq. Media Access Project was happy as well: “Ending exclusive contracts for cable services will ensure that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of choice, such as lower prices and better service, wherever they live,” said MAP VP Harold Feld.

h4. <a href=”http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/29/fcc_television#”>For rent: Apt. w/ choice of TV service</a>

*Marketplace Radio*   Lisa Napoli: October 29, 2007

bq. Because the phone company isn’t just about phone service any more. Andy Schwartzman of the Media Access Project says that desire to diversify is sure to translate, in this case, into good news for the public.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1029Multichannel.pdf”>FCC Asked to Cut Leased-Access Rate</a>

*Mulitchannel* Ted Hearn: October 29, 2007

bq. In the meeting, MAP senior vice president Harold Feld endorsed a rule that would determine a single, national leased access rate “using price information from Los Angeles and New York City, currently the two most competitive leased-access markets”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1026AP.pdf”>Airwaves Auction Still Faces Challenge</a>

*Associated Press* John Dunbar: October 26, 2007

bq. Harold Feld, an attorney with the public interest group Media Access Project and a proponent of the open access concept, is skeptical. “I don’t think it’s at all odd or coincidental that we had Verizon drop its petition and CTIA file instead,” he said. If a party wants to challenge an FCC order, it may do so administratively or go straight to the courts. But it may not do both, Feld said.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1022BostonHerald.pdf”>FCC eyes push vs. owner rule</a>

*Boston Herald* Jay Fitzgerald: October 22, 2007

bq. But Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, said it’s simply wrong to say the rule is outdated due to new technologies. He said newspapers and television stations “remain by far” the most powerful news distributors in any given city – and relaxing the rule will make media companies that much more powerful.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1019WSJ.pdf”>FCC Moves on Ownership</a>

*Wall Street Journal* Corey Boles and Sarah Ellison: October 19, 2007

bq. Mr. Martin “is very focused in getting something on the books that would survive judicial review,” says Harold Feld, senior vice president at Media Access Project, a public-interest group.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1019B&C.pdf”>AP: Comcast Blocks Some File-Sharing</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: October 19, 2007

bq. Media Access Project criticized Comcast and took the opportunity of the AP story to make a pitch for network neutrality. “When a broadband provider can deliberately disrupt traffic without telling subscribers, no one’s content is safe,” MAP senior vice president Harold Feld said. “Comcast’s actions to target BitTorrent traffic without telling customers interferes with the many legitimate users who pay extra for broadband connections so they can move large files they have every legal right to send.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/10/senators_urge_slower_timetable.php”>Senators Urge Slower Timetable for FCC Review of Media Ownership Rules</a>

*TV Week* Ira Teinowitz: October 18, 2007

bq. Andy Schwartzman, director of the Media Access Project, the public-interest law firm that won the last appeal, also warned that a quick conclusion would put the FCC on the same path as last time. “Proposing rules in mid-November, accepting comments in early December and voting on Dec. 18 certainly gives rise to a sense of deja vu,” Mr. Schwartzman said.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1009Variety.pdf”>Time running out on Bush’s FCC</a>

*Variety* Brian Lowry: October 9, 2007

bq. “  If you had asked me a couple of years ago … I would have thought we would have gotten a lot further,” acknowledged Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the nonprofit Media Access Project, which successfully used the courts to scuttle the Federal Communications Commission’s last stab at revising the ownership guidelines — under the imperious reign of then-chairman Michael Powell — in 2004.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1006LATimes.pdf”>FCC cleared by own inquiry</a>

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: October 6, 2007

bq. “The report bends over backward to give the benefit of the doubt to the commission management,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that filed the suit that halted the FCC’s 2003 media ownership rule changes.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/1004RCRWireless.pdf”>Court won’t expedite VZW’s challenge to open access</a>

*RCR Wireless News* Jeffrey Silva: October 4, 2007

bq. The Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, whose representatives met with Martin and his staff yesterday, stated they told FCC officials “they believed that, as a general matter, no clarification of the [700 MHz] order was necessary, and that specifically, the order was clear on the obligations of the network providers with regards to devices and applications. Further, efforts to clarify the order in response to hypothetical concerns could have unintended consequences, such as the creation of &lsquo;safe harbors’ for discriminatory conduct”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0929B&C.pdf”>FCC Profanity Crackdown in Limbo</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: September 29, 2007

bq. Andrew J. Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, said he was puzzled by the government’s decision to seek the review of a case that was decided narrowly on procedural grounds and concerning the application of established law. He said the court was not likely to take the case. “We will oppose the Supreme Court review because it only prolongs the uncertainty for our clients,” said Schwartzman, who represents Hollywood’s interest (technically, the Center for Creative Voices in Media) in the case.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0917B&C.pdf”>It’s FCC vs. CBS in Bowl Battle</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: September 17, 2007

bq. Andy Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, which represented Hollywood (the Center for Creative Voices) in its amicus filing in support of CBS, shared that assessment. While he, too, cautioned that it was tough to handicap oral arguments, he said it “certainly looked like a bad day for the FCC. The court was extremely skeptical about the commission’s position on whether CBS should be held accountable for what Jackson and Timberlake did on their own, and they seemed unreceptive to the commission’s claims that it was relying on established precedent”

h4. <a href=”http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/09/fcc_draws_fire_for_emmys_bleep.php”>FCC Draws Fire for Emmys Bleeping</a>

*TVWeek* Ira Teinowitz: September 17, 2007

bq. Andy Schwartzman, president-CEO of the Media Access Project, which has filed friend of the court briefs in challenges to the FCC crackdown, said the bleeping “is precisely the kind of overly defensive behavior which we warned about in our brief. Not only was some of the bleeping unnecessary from a legal standpoint, but it seems that [Fox] also deleted the video images for fear of offending the lip readers among us”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0912PhillyInquirer.pdf”>Super Bowl exposure has its day in court</a>

*Philadelphia Inquirer* John Shiffman: September 12, 2007

bq. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a public interest lawyer who represents writers, producers and directors, said his clients are struggling with what he called the vagueness of the FCC’s new rules.”  The uncertainty forces creative artists to err on the side of overcaution,” he said after attending yesterday’s hearing. “This adversely affects the creative process. . . .”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0911Variety.pdf”>CBS rallies against FCC fine</a>

*Variety* William Triplett: September 11, 2007

bq. “The judges showed considerable skepticism toward the FCC’s position, much more so than to CBS,” said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project watchdog group. “If I had to put money on it, I’d say some sort of reversal will happen.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0910LegalTimes.pdf”>3rd Circuit to Hear CBS’ Appeal Over Indecency Fine for Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl Stunt</a>

*Legal Times* Jeff Horowitz: September 10, 2007

bq. The network’s choice of venue was likely strategic, Schwartzman says, noting that the 3rd Circuit has issued opinions strongly protecting First Amendment claims in the past. Its judges twice struck down the Child Online Protection Act for free speech reasons, and they upheld Playboy Television’s First Amendment rights against a government challenge in another.

h4. <a href=”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/guess-whos-afraid-of-an-_b_63655.html” title=”Permalink” id=”title_permalink”>Guess Who’s Afraid of an Open Internet?</a>

*The Huffington Post* Timothy Karr: September 9

bq. “The filing parrots the industry arguments that adopting a rule that would prevent telephone and cable companies from monitoring and filtering internet traffic would harm investment and innovation,” Feld writes, “despite mounting evidence from Europe and Asia that the opposite is true.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0907WebProNews.pdf”>Is The FCC Blocking Wireless Competition?</a>

*webpronews.com* Jason Lee Miller: September 7, 2007

bq. But Harold Feld, Senior Vice President of Media Access Project, a 35-year-old nonprofit organization dedicated to free speech in media issues and, more recently, opening up spectrum bands for unlicensed public use, says that the FCC granting a license allowing a network operator to filter content would be “an outright violation of the First Amendment.”

h4. Listen to <a href=”http://video.webpronews.com/2007/09/07/haroldfeld.mp3″>interview</a>

<a href=”http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/bush-administra.html”>Bush Administration Restates Position on Proposed Internet Traffic Policing Rules</a>

*Wired Blog Network* Sarah Lai Stirland: September 6, 2007

bq. “The DOJ Antitrust division comments look like the “Cliffsnotes version” of the AT&T filing,” wrote</a> Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the Media Access Project</a> and long-time telecom policy analyst in Washington DC.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0906B&C.pdf”>Bush Administration Takes Aim at Network Neutrality</a>

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: September 6, 2007

bq. “It would seem that the president and the Justice Department cannot do enough for AT&T and the other companies that agreed to spy on the American people,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of Media Access Project, referring to reports of phone company cooperation with government information collection operations related to homeland security. “Without network neutrality, companies are free to turn over user information without a warrant or to block users from desired content, as AT&T recently did &lsquo;accidentally’ by blocking Pearl Jam’s criticism of the president during a concert performance carried on AT&T’s broadband service.”

h4. <a href=”http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9770197-7.html”>FCC rejects free Wi-Fi start-up’s spectrum plans</a>

*CNET News Blog* Anne Broache: September 1, 2007

bq. The filing, penned by the Media Access Project, said the group wasn’t convinced the band even needs to be licensed, but if it is, the group urged the FCC to impose Net Neutrality requirements on those who license that slice of spectrum and require that they sell it on a wholesale basis.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0821Tribune.pdf”>Tribune vote a sure thing; firm’s future not as certain</a>

*Chicago Tribune* Phil Rosenthal: August 21, 2007

bq. Andrew Schwartzman, president and chief executive of Media Access Projects, which opposes the FCC granting Tribune Co. temporary waivers in the five markets where it owns both broadcast outlets and papers, noted that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has signaled he would like to repeal or loosen the prohibitions on media cross-ownership.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0816CNet.pdf”>White-space spectrum debate rages</a>

*CNET News.com* Marguerite Reardon: August 16, 2007

bq. “The 700MHz spectrum is not enough to compete against a service like Verizon’s Fios,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of public-interest nonprofit Media Access Project, in reference to Verizon Communications ‘ high-capacity network featuring fiber-optic connections to the home. “It’s only 62MHz of spectrum. So you’re going to need a lot more. That’s why it’s important to provide access to licensed as well as unlicensed spectrum.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0814WSJ.pdf”>FCC Auction May Benefit Single Company</a>

*Wall Street Journal* Cory Boles: August 14, 2007
bq. “It would have been very wise to include such a rule, because even if it would be unlikely, the fact that a big player would have to choose between one strategy or another would have bolstered other potential participants,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of Media Access Project, a public-interest group.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0813TechDaily.pdf”>Is The ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Fair?</a>

*Technology Daily* David Hatch: August 13, 2007
bq. “Until recently this was a bipartisan issue,” Andrew Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a nonprofit law firm, said in an interview. “This is all about feeding the fundraising beast.”

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0803HollyReporter.pdf”>Dow deal stirs skeptics</a>

*The Hollywood Reporter* Brooks Boliek: August 3, 2007
bq. “There is no question that the circumstances around the purchase of the Wall Street Journal are contributing to a renewal of interest about the concentration of media ownership,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of Media Access Project.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0802LATimes.pdf”>Panel named for Wall Street Journal</a>

*LA Times* Joseph Menn and Jim Puzzanghera: August 2, 2007
bq. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, chief executive of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that opposes media consolidation, said he didn’t see how the FCC could hold up the Dow Jones deal because there are no TV station licenses that need to be transferred. But he said the purchase could affect the waivers for the two stations.

h4. <a href=”http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0801reuters.pdf”>FCC’s Copps wants review of News Corp./DJ deal</a>

*Reuters* Jeremy Pelofsky: August 1, 2007
bq. “There is no precedent specifically holding that ownership of the WSJ and a N.Y. television station, much less two, is okay under the cross-ownership rule,” said Andrew Schwartzman, head of the consumer advocacy group Media Access Project.

h4. “FCC Meets Google Only Halfway”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0801eweek.pdf

*eWEEK.com* Carol Pinchefsky: August 1, 2007

bq. According to Harold Feld, vice president of Washington-based nonprofit Media Access Project, “One thing the FCC did do is state that operating real-time auctions for access did not violate the existing rules. [Google] can still offer wholesale services if they want.”

h4. “FCC Cruises Down Middle of the Spectrum”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0731technewsworld.pdf

*TechNewsWorld* Chris Maxcer: July 31, 2007

bq. “This sort of a half-measure eats up a lot of competition. If you had the wholesale condition we had asked for, you’d see companies who would offer a plain, straightforward wireless connection where you could bring any device, because they know that’s what people want,” he explained.

h4. “Murdoch grew up on ‘ritual feuding with other media’”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0731USATODAY.pdf

*USA Today* David Lieberman: July 31, 2007

bq. “His success has been at the expense of the public interest,” says Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a consumer advocacy law firm. “The concentration he has achieved is antithetical to Federal Communications Commission media policy and bad for free speech.”

h4. “Auction May Not Be a Boon for Consumers”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0731USATODAY.pdf

*Washingtonpost.com* John Dunbar, Associated Press: July 30, 2007

bq. Harold Feld, who studies spectrum issues for the Media Access Project, a nonprofit public interest group, said chances of a wholesale provision passing are virtually nil. “Politics both inside and outside (the agency) make it a thousand-to-one against a wholesale open-access provision,” he said.

h4. “Upcoming rules could break open wireless market”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0730USATODAY.pdf

*USA Today* Paul Davidson: July 30, 2007

bq. “My feeling is this is a positive step forward,” says Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, a public-interest group.

h4. “The Flawed Debate about the Fairness Doctrine”:http://blogher.org/node/22710

*BlogHer* Kim Pearson: July 22, 2007

bq. The major reason for the rise of national talk personalities like Limbaugh, [Media Access Project analyst Andrew] Schwartzman believes, was a change in the cost of national satellite distribution. Syndicated programming meant that stations no longer had to develop their own local talent.

h4. “Media Expert Predicts Digital ‘Train Wreck’”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0717NatlJournal.pdf

*National Journal’s Insider Update* David Hatch: July 17, 2007

bq. “This really calls for a [sweeping] governmental program. The public isn’t going to pay a lot of attention to these voluntary efforts,” Andrew Schwartzman, president of the nonprofit law firm Media Access Project, said in reference to industry-led initiatives.

h4. “FCC wants open access to spectrum”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0711LATimes.pdf

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: July 11, 2007

bq. “This is a baby step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough,” said Feld, whose firm is part of the Save Our Spectrum coalition of public interest and consumer groups.

h4. “Tribune faces key tests to seal deal”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0705%20LATIMES.pdf

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: July 5, 2007

bq. “It runs the risk of creating an appearance of favoritism that would be very counterproductive for Kevin Martin,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that is representing the United Church of Christ and the Media Alliance in their opposition to Tribune’s waiver request.

h4. “‘Media Tracker’ Database Made Available For Noncommercial Use”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0703%20InformationWeek.pdf

*InformationWeek* K.C. Jones: July 3, 2007

bq. “Because public advocates generally cannot afford commercial data, public advocacy suffers a serious disadvantage against industry — especially when federal agencies rely on proprietary data that public advocates cannot access, and therefore cannot test or rebut,” Harold Feld, senior VP of the Media Access Project, said in a statement.

h4. “Bush Official in ‘Shouting Match’ with Open Access Supporters”:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/bush-official-in-shoutin_b_53801.html

*The Huffington Post* Timothy Karr: June 26, 2007

bq. These “free market” industry lobbyists have no problem demanding the federal government leverage its muscle for themselves, Feld says.

h4. “Maine shows Internet resolve”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0622%20Seattle%20Times.pdf

*The Seattle Times Ryan Blethen: June 22, 2007*

bq. “The question is, can a state legislate in this area? That is a good and untested question,” said Harold Feld, of the Media Access Project, an organization that has been pushing for net neutrality.

h4. “Guarding The Beachfront”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0618%20Multichannel%20News.pdf

*Multichannel News* Ted Hearn: June 18, 2007

bq.  “We think it makes excellent sense just to keep the incumbents out of this auction,” said MAP senior vice president Harold Feld. “If we really want a genuine third pipe — that is to say, one that competes against telephone [digital subscriber line] and the cable broadband platform — keep those guys out.”

h4. “Notes From The Future Of Radio”:http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/06/radio_future.html

*ConsumerAffairs.com* Martin H. Bosworth: June 15, 2007

bq. Feld agreed, saying that the lack of availability of new music and artists was driving away listeners and killing the industry’s business model. “No one is listening to what [they're] playing,” he said.

h4. “Wireless auction grabs attention from all sides”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0615%20TheHill.pdf

*The Hill* Jessica Holzer: June 15, 2007

bq. “There is a great need for access to spectrum,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, a member of the coalition.

h4. “FCC Denies Challenge To Chicago, Milwaukee TV Stations”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0613%20InformationWeek.pdf

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: June 13, 2007

bq. Citing a Study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the Media Access Project, representing Chicago Media Action (CMA) and the Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition (MPIMC), had argued that less than 1% of their regularly scheduled newscasts and public affairs shows in a one-month period leading up to the November 2004 election were devoted to non-federal races.

h4. “Tribune Deal Challenged With FCC”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0611%20Houston%20Chron.pdf

*Houston Chronicle* Dave Carpenter, Associated Press: June 11, 2007

bq.   Andy Schwartzman, the group’s president, noted that Tribune had several opportunities to sell its broadcast and newspaper properties separately.  “The underlying concern that drives this is that media concentration is bad for the public and diversification of media promotes democracy”

h4. “Tuning Out the Left”:http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=5634&IssueNum=209

*Los Angeles CityBeat* Mindy Farabee: June 7, 2007

bq. But “what’s troubling is that what’s carried on the set-asides is often duplication of what’s already airing on the pay channels,” says Andy Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project.

h4. “Analysis: Ruling Drives Indecency Debate”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0606%20WashingtonPost.pdf

*Washington Post.com* John Dunbar, The Associated Press: June 6, 2007

bq. Schwartzman said the Supreme Court does not review dicta. He called the case a “garden-variety application of routine administrative law principals” where the “constitutional issue is simply not raised.”

h4. “FCC chairman not mincing words”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0605%20Variety.pdf

*Variety* Cynthia Littleton: June 5, 2007

bq. Schwartzman’s guess is that the FCC’s next stop is Congress, throwing lawmakers the election-year red meat of asking it for legislative cover to protect children from bad language on TV and bad “New York” court decisions.

h4. “Broadcasters Win Appeal Of FCC’s Profanity Ruling”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0605%20Washington%20Post.pdf

*Washington Post.com* Frank Ahrens: June 5, 2007

bq.  In a statement, Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public-interest group specializing in the media, said: “It’s a shame that citizens and broadcasters had to seek protection from the courts, but it is very reassuring to know that one branch of the government can rise above demagogy.”

h4. “Court rejects FCC ruling on indecency”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0605%20Chicago%20Tribune.pdf

*Chicago Tribune* Jim Puzzanghera: June 5, 2007

bq. Schwartzman said the decision isn’t immediately operative, as the FCC weighs an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Eventually, the ruling will force the agency to nullify “almost all” of the changes it announced in March 2006, he said.

h4. “2nd Circuit Finds FCC’s Policy on ‘Fleeting Expletives’ Arbitrary”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0605%20NYLJ.pdf

*New York Law Journal* Mark Hamblett: June 5, 2007

bq. Schwartzman said his client is pleased with the decision. “The vagueness and uncertainty this created was interfering with the creative process and we certainly hope this decision will force the FCC back to square one and straighten this thing out”

h4. “FCC Indecency Rules Dealt Serious Blow by Appeals Court”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0604%20WSJ.pdf

*Wall Street Journal* Corey Boles: June 4, 2007

bq. “It is statutory and very narrow so it will be very difficult for the government to pursue it in the Supreme Court, therefore the FCC will have to go back to the drawing board,” said Andy Schwartzman, of public interest group Media Access Project.

h4. “Fox TV Wins Challenge Over FCC’s Indecency Policy”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0604%20Bloomberg.pdf

*Bloomberg.com* Christopher Stern and David Glovin: June 4, 2007

bq. “Score one for the First Amendment,” said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a Washington based public interest law firm who represented Hollywood creative professionals in the case.

“FCC Broadband Auction Rules Called ‘Fundamentally Flawed’”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0604%20CNSNEWS.pdf

*CNSNEWS.com* Monisha Bansal: June 4, 2007

bq. “The only chance to create a competitive market is here at the initial licensing stage,” stated Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, who added that smaller companies are likely to invest more in new uses for broadband since they are unlikely to be able to compete in the voice and data industries.

h4. “Groups call for competitive spectrum auction”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0601%20InfoWorld.pdf

*InfoWorld* Grant Gross, IDG News Service: June 1, 2007

bq. “If we do nothing — if we take the [auction] rules we’ve used for the last 10 years, the same incumbents are going to win,” added Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, an open media advocacy group.

h4. “XM Scolds `Opie& Anthony’ Hosts Over Crude Comments”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0511%20Bloomberg.pdf

*Bloomberg.com* Christopher Stern: May 11, 2007

bq. “It is likely that any approval of the transaction is going to require concessions and the price tag just went up,” said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a Washington-based public interest law firm that specializes on media related issues.

h4. “Democrats are aiming to scrutinize Murdoch’s $5B bid for Dow Jones”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0508%20The%20Hill.pdf

*The Hill* Elana Schor: May 8, 2007

bq. “If I were a conservative, I’d be unhappy about going from two conservative voices to one on the editorial side,” Schwartzman said.

h4. “GOP run could impact actor’s TV time”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0504%20LA%20Times.pdf

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: May 4, 2007

bq. “It is an odd artifact of a set of principles that for the most part have worked extremely well,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public-interest law firm.

h4. “Murdoch’s offer for Dow Jones launches its shares”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0501%20Newsday.pdf

*Newsday.com* Richard J. Dalton Jr. & Susan Harrigan: May 1, 2007

bq. Regulations prohibit ownership of local television stations and newspapers in the same metropolitan market. But The Wall Street Journal is a national newspaper, so it doesn’t fall under the regulations, said Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a nonprofit public interest law firm.

h4. “Critic: Open Bids Stymie Newcomers”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0430%20Multichannel.pdf

*Multichannel News* Kent Gibbons: April 30, 2007

bq. “No half-measure or compromise can hope to address the blocking and signaling problems,” Rose said in a Media Access Project release about the studies. “The 700 MHz Auction is the last chance for the FCC to bring wireless broadband competition to all Americans.”

h4. “Reports: AWS Auction Was Gamed, 700 MHz Sale Must Be Protected”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0425%20Telecom%20Web.pdf

*TelecomWeb* April 25, 2007

bq. “It is hard to escape the conclusion that incumbents ‘gamed’ the rules to make sure that the FCC used open bidding rather than anonymous bidding,” he says, concluding that only adoption of anonymous bidding can solve the blocking and signaling problems.

h4. “FCC to reveal spectrum auction plan”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0425%20CNet.pdf

*CNET News.com* Marguerite Reardon: April 25, 2007

bq. “Pretty much everyone agrees this is the last big piece of spectrum to be auctioned off for the foreseeable future. And if you don’t get the rules right, the existing players could control the auction and then nothing in our wireless broadband future will change.”

h4. “FCC to unveil auction plan on Wednesday”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0424%20Washington%20%20Post.pdf

*Washingtonpost.com* Rachelle Younglai, Reuters: April 25, 2007

bq. The 700 Mhz is the largest block of the most desirable spectrum to be made available in this generation. The future of broadband service in this country will be determined by the outcome of this auction,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project.

h4. “Studies: Incumbents Blocked New Rivals in Spectrum Auction”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0423%20Multichannel.pdf

*Multichannel News* Kent Gibbons: April 23, 2007

bq. Public-interest law firm Media Access Project said incumbent broadband carriers, including large U.S. cable and phone companies, successfully blocked potential key new competitors — including direct-broadcast satellite companies — from winning wireless-broadband-spectrum auctions last year.

h4. “Martin to Stations: Put Public Records Online”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0416%20B&C.pdf

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: April 16, 2007

bq. Andrew Schwartzman, of watchdog group Media Access Project, says “Putting this information online is essential for meaningful public participation.”

h4. “Bidders get online for piece of the Web”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0415%20Star%20Ledger.pdf

*The Star Ledger* Katherine Reynolds Lewis: April 15, 2007

bq. A consortium of consumer groups has asked the FCC either to structure auction bidding so incumbents can’t shut out competitors, or to designate half the frequencies as wholesale broadband service, known as open access, said Harold Feld, one of the attorneys representing the consortium.

h4. “What the Tribune Sale Means”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0409%20B&C.pdf

*Broadcasting & Cable* Paige Albiniak: April 9, 2007

bq. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of Washington-based public-interest law firm Media Access Project, says, “A sale to Zell will have to surmount fierce opposition to obtain approval.”

h4. “FCC chief avoids missteps of predecessor”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0408%20LA%20Times.pdf

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: April 8, 2007

bq. “Michael Powell just had an arrogance about public participation … and failed to realize this is an inherently political process,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that filed the lawsuit that sent the 2003 media ownership rules back to the FCC. “Martin understands the politics of it.”

h4. “FCC could force company breakup”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0405%20Chicago%20Tribune%20news.pdf

*Chicago Tribune* Susan Chandler: April 5, 2007

bq. “They’ve got pretty difficult obstacles to surmount,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and chief executive of Media Access Project, a non-profit telecommunications law firm that said it will fight the Tribune-Zell deal because it is not in the public interest.

h4. “Congress Nudges an FCC on Hold”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0404%20WashPost.pdf

*Washingtonpost.com* Charles Babington: April 4, 2007

bq. With Democrats running Congress, FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin is “responding to the sense that Dingell doesn’t like backlogs,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the nonprofit Media Access Project.

h4. “‘Law and Order’ may face real law”:http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/politics/2007/04/03/costello.equal.time.affl

*CNN.com* April 3, 2007

h4. “$8 billion deal takes Tribune private”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0403%20USAToday.pdf

*USA Today* David Lieberman and Bruce Horovitz: April 3, 2007

bq. “Under FCC rules, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court, Tribune may not sell its co-located properties to a single purchaser,” says Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm. “That means Zell will have to obtain five waivers from the FCC.”

h4. “Zell plan must leap legal hurdles”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0403%20LATimes.pdf

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: April 3, 2007

bq. “Zell needs five waivers and can’t make the same argument as Tribune” about his qualifications, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, chief executive of Media Access Project, a nonprofit advocacy law firm in Washington that plans to oppose the transfer.

h4. “Chicagoan Puts Up $315 Million to Win $8.2 Billion Tribune Co.”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0403%20NYT.pdf

*New York Times* Katharine Q. Seelye and Richard Siklos: April 3, 2007

bq. “The basis on which they have always sought their exemptions is that the Tribune Company has a special tradition of quality in journalism,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, an advocacy group that has been critical of efforts to deregulate the industry. “Zell can’t make those claims. He has no tradition of promoting journalism and he’s a cost cutter.”

h4. “Tribune Accepts $8.2B Offer From Zell”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0402%20AP.pdf

*Washingtonpost.com* Ashley M. Heher, The Associated Press: April 2, 2007

bq. “There will be fierce opposition to the sale and it will be used as a vehicle to underscore the fight over media consolidation at the FCC and in Congress,” said Andy Schwartzman, president of Washington-based Media Access Project.

h4. “Zell Buys Tribune Co., Plans to Sell Cubs”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0402%20TV%20Week.pdf

*TelevisionWeek* Michelle Greppi: April 2, 2007

bq. “A sale to Zell will have to surmount fierce opposition to obtain FCC approval,” Mr. Schwartzman said. “This sale will face a long and difficult battle to obtain regulatory approval.”

h4. “Fred Thompson’s Presidential Hopes Could Put ‘Law’ Reruns in Lockup”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0330%20WashPost.pdf

*Washingtonpost.com* Michael D. Shear: March 30, 2007

bq. “As a practical matter, [the television stations] would in all likelihood have to pull all of the Fred Thompson shows for the duration of his candidacy,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project.

h4. “‘Net Neutrality’ Strikes Chord With Coalition Of Musicians”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0328%20Tech%20Daily.pdf

*Technology Daily* Michael Martinez: March 28, 2007

bq. Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman said that for musicians, network neutrality is just as much about uploading content as it is downloading.  “It really involves people’s right to speak as much as it involves their ability to receive information,” he said.

h4. “FCC OKs Study of Internet Service”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0322%20The%20Associated%20Press.pdf

*Washingtonpost.com* Christopher S. Rugaber, The Associated Press: March 22, 2007

bq. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a consumer advocacy group, said the study is a way for the FCC to avoid tackling the issue. “Kicking the can down the road with just another study is a low-tech but effective means of delaying action on a critical high-tech question,” he said.

h4. “FCC Gives OK To Digital Audio Broadcasting”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0322%20Broadcasting%20&%20Cable.pdf

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: March 22, 2007

bq. MAP was also unhappy that there was not explicit encouragement to broadcasters to use the multicast channels to increase the number of diverse voices–particularly those of women and minorities– in the market.

h4. “FCC’s Martin Pushes for Digital Fix”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0313%20The%20Deal.pdf

*The Deal* Bill McConnell: March 13, 2007

bq. “We’re willing to listen. But if this becomes excuse to set up a satellite dishes and lease channels to national programmers, it’s not going to be acceptable,” Schwartzman said.

h4. “FCC Makes It Easier For Telcos To Offer TV Services”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0306%20Information%20Week.pdf

*Information Week* W. David Gardner: March 6, 2007

bq. The new rules evoked opposition from a variety of consumer organizations. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, says the FCC decision will destroy local control over cable TV access.

h4. “Comcast Fights Ownership Limits”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0226%20Multichannel.pdf

*Multichannell *Ted Hearn: February 26, 2007

bq. Andrew Schwartzman, president of the public-interest law firm Media Access Project, said that the FCC should keep cable ownership on a separate track. “Mucking them up together is just going to delay both of them,” Schwartzman said.

h4. “Call’s out: Open cellular nets”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0226%20EETimes.com.pdf

*EETimes.com* Rick Merritt: February 26, 2007

bq.  “Tim Wu’s paper certainly provides a strong foundation for a petition to the FCC to mandate network attachment rules and network neutrality for wireless,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of MAP.

h4. “FCC hurdles loom for XM, Sirius merger”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0220%20BusinessWeek.pdf

*BusinessWeek.com* John Dunbar, The Associated Press: February 20, 2007

bq. “My guess is this Justice Department will be willing to accept any plausible argument that is presented to it,” he said. “The FCC is a much tougher case.”

h4. “Paper-TV ties stall sale of Tribune”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0219%20LA%20Times.pdf

*Los Angeles Times* Jim Puzzanghera: February 19, 2007

bq. Yet even in the Internet age, most Americans depend on their hometown media for the local news, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a public interest law firm. “When people decide for whom they wish to vote for city council, for mayor, they rely on over-the-air television and daily newspapers,” he said.

h4. “FCC, FTC Challenged To Protect Net Neutrality”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0216%20Consumer%20Affairs.pdf

*ConsumerAffairs.com* Martin H. Bosworth: February 15, 2007

bq. Media Access Project’s Harold Feld bemoaned the panel makeup, saying it was dominated by industry apologists. “So the pro and con industry reps and pro and con academics each have their own panel, but the “consumers” (i.e., us regular folks actually using broadband) have to share “our” panel with two industry reps and two academics,” he said on his blog.

h4. “NEW COP FOR HIGH-SPEED NET?”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0211%20San%20Francisco%20Chronicle.pdf

*San Francisco Chronicle* Tom Abate: February 11, 2007

bq. But Howard Feld, who will speak at the FTC panel on behalf of the pro-neutrality Media Access Project, said the FCC estimates greatly overstate the extent of competition because it counts as broadband new wireless services that deliver 200 kilobits per second — which is not much faster than old-fashioned dial-up service and far slower than phone or cable company lines.

h4. “Diversity Debate Shapes Media Ownership Rules”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0129%20CQWeekly.pdf

*CQ Weekly* Joelle Tessler: January 29, 2007

bq. Harold Feld, senior vice president for the public interest law firm Media Access Project, said minority owners are less likely to present minorities as stereotypes in news and entertainment programming, which can play an important role in shaping public perceptions.

h4. “View of media ownership limits changes”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0129%20USATODAY.pdf

*USA Today* David Lieberman: January 29, 2007

bq. That’s “his top priority among the media ownership rules,” says Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm. “So we have a big fight on our hands.”

h4. “Web Extra: The State of the Media”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0129%20Broadcasting%20&%20Cable.pdf

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: January 29, 2007

bq. We have the world’s best and most innovative media infrastructure. I think this is because of — not in spite of — regulation of the electronic media.

h4. “Making Airwaves: Goodbye Old-Fashioned Revival Hour. Hello ’safe for the whole family.’ Meet the company that’s transforming Christian radio.”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0126%20Christianity%20Today.pdf

*Christianity Today* Madison Trammel: January 26, 2007

bq. “Within the Christian community, there are debates that people should be having, [such as], ‘What is an appropriate way to be looking at war and politics and local affairs through a Christian perspective?’” Feld says. “So to have a company that creates just one perspective, and brands it as the Christian perspective—and this is the only Christian perspective you will find on the air—creates a very serious problem.”

h4. “Maybe Record Companies *Should* Be Losing Money”:http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/01/maybe_record_co.html

*WIRED Blogs: Listening Post* Eliot Van Buskirk and Sean Michaels: January 23, 2007

bq. Harold Feld at Public Knowledge (PK) presents a novel idea in regard to music sales figures: maybe record companies aren’t supposed to be making as much money as they did with CDs.

h4. “The Movement in Memphis”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0122%20Broadcasting%20&%20Cable.pdf

*Broadcasting & Cable* Harold Feld: January 22, 2007

bq. Can a movement that thrived on fighting defense against powerful forces successfully go on the offensive? As someone who attended the NCMR in Memphis, I strongly believe it can.

h4. “Democratic Gains Alter Media Ownership Debate”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0118%20National%20Journal.pdf

*National Journal’s Telecom Update* David Hatch: January 18, 2007

bq. “If Martin had known the Democrats were going to take over Congress, certainly he would have moved things along faster,” quipped Andrew Schwartzman, president and chief executive officer of the public-interest law firm Media Access Project, which opposes easing the rules.”

h4. “Martin Wants FCC to Review Cable Ownership”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0117%20TV%20Week.pdf

*Television Week* Ira Teinowitz: January 17, 2007

bq. Andy Schwartzman, executive director of the Media Access Project, a public-interest law firm specializing in FCC issues, said today that the FCC should immediately move forward on the cable rule. “They have been waiting on this for five years. They should finish it off,” he said.

h4. “Adelstein Slams ‘Faith-Based Regulation’”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0111%20Broadcasting%20&%20Cable.pdf

*Broadcasting & Cable* John Eggerton: January 11, 2007

bq. Harold Feld, senior VP, Media Access Project, who was attending a “pre-conference before the three-day Free Press Media Reform Conference that begins Friday in Memphis, says that, borrowing from Al Gore, Adelstein urged activists and academics to spread the “inconvenient truth” about the impact of consolidation to the FCC and Capitol Hill.

h4. “Sinclair clash may lead to larger cable fights”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0109%20Baltimore%20Sun.pdf

*Baltimore Sun* Hanah Cho: January 9, 2007

bq. “The retransmission consent issue, in general, has became a means of leveraging over-the-air broadcasters’ market power to obtain concessions from the cable industry,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and chief executive of the Media Access Project.

h4. “Comcast raises its cable TV rates”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0107%20Courier%20Post.pdf

*Courier-Post* Eileen Stillwell: January 7, 2007

bq. “Duopolies don’t always generate competition. Sometimes they create a conscious parallelism, which means they maintain the status quo in the market, instead of competing in it. With only two players, it would be irrational to start a price war because it becomes an avoidable race to the bottom. They both lose,” said Schwartzman.

h4. “AT&T deal saves ‘net neutrality’”:http://www.mediaaccess.org/news/2007%20News/0103%20Inside%20Bay%20Area.pdf

*Inside Bay Area* Barbara Grady: January 3, 2007

bq. Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, added, “As a practical matter, we gained here a very clear definition of network neutrality that can be clearly implemented in legislation.”

Harold Feld, MAP’s Senior Vice President, will be a panelist at the FTC’s upcoming Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy conference. The conference will bring together experts from business, government, and the technology sector, consumer advocates, and academics to explore competition and consumer protection issues relating to broadband Internet access, including debate on “network neutrality.”
See Harold’s <txp:file_download_link id=”182″>power point presentation</txp:file_download_link>Listen to the “conference”:http://htc-01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/FTCindex.html
*Time*: Wednesday, February 14th, 11:00 a.m.*Location*: FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW