Foreign Policy In Focus analyst Conn Hallinan (8/6/09) has yet another debunking of "the story most U.S. readers are getting about the coup" in Honduras, being "that Zelaya--an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez--was deposed because he tried to change the constitution to keep himself in power."

Calling this dominant media narrative "a massive distortion of the facts," Hallinan patiently explains that "all Zelaya was trying to do is to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot calling for a constitutional convention"--which, Hallinan notes, was "a move that trade unions, indigenous groups and social activist organizations had long been lobbying for," since the country's current "one-term limit allows the brass-hats to dominate the politics of the country."

But things get really interesting when Hallinan spots a "U.S. Connection"--via one of our largest media conglomerates:

While Zelaya is indeed friendly with Chávez, he is at best a liberal reformer whose major accomplishment was raising the minimum wage....

One of those "little reforms" was aimed at ensuring public control of the Honduran telecommunications industry, which may well have been the trip-wire that triggered the coup....

One of the charges that [right wing Latin America operative Otto] Reich levels at Zelaya is that the Honduran president is supposedly involved with bribes paid out by the state-run telecommunications company Hondutel. Zelaya is threatening to file a defamation suit over the accusation.

Reich's charges against Hondutel are hardly happenstance, as he is a former AT&T lobbyist and served as Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) Latin American advisor during the senator's 2008 presidential campaign.

Writing that "AT&T, McCain's second largest donor, also generously funds the International Republican Institute, which has warred with Latin American regimes that have resisted telecommunications privatization," Hallinan perceives the seeds of Zelaya's fate in the fact that he "was known to be a fierce critic of telecommunications privatization."

Admitting "the temptation to join the growing legions of iPhone admirers is strong," independent reporter Megan Tady (In These Times, 7/2/09) is discussing "what's stopping me from signing up." Her own personal decision is based on the fact that "purchasing an iPhone means I have to become an AT&T subscriber. The company has an exclusive deal with Apple to provide wireless service to iPhoners"--which means, among other things, that Tady would be "backed into a corner. If I don't like AT&T, or it's not available in my area, I'm facing a digital impasse: no service, no phone":

This is unfortunate, not because I'm missing out on the iPhone's "bar finder" application, but because smart phones are setting the stage for the future of the mobile Internet. They are revolutionary because they free us from our home or office computers. We can catch breaking news, create and upload content, and navigate online social networks and movements from anywhere.

It's the Internet--some might say "the world"--in our pockets. Or at least, it could be. But companies like AT&T and Verizon are getting in the way by shackling innovative devices like the iPhone and the BlackBerry Storm to closed networks.

These exclusive deals limit consumer choice and stifle innovation. Rural residents who can’t get cellular service from the wireless carriers holding exclusive rights to popular smart phones like the iPhone are left watching the commercials for them. If smaller, more local wireless carriers were allowed to service them, these phones could be available to rural America.

Tady strongly asserts that "consumers should have the freedom to choose any phone on any network, to choose among many carriers in a competitive, low-cost marketplace and to access any Web content, applications or services they want"--and she asks your help in "protesting handset exclusivity" by "urging our lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission to step in."

Keeping up with corporate attempts to abuse new media technology, the activists at Free Press (6/18/09) have a new campaign pointing out exactly what's wrong with the fact that "AT&T is allowing Major League Baseball to stream video live to the iPhone on the carrier's 3G network, but is prohibiting other companies like SlingPlayer Mobile from doing the same":

Last month, AT&T admitted to restricting the SlingPlayer Mobile iPhone application from streaming live on its 3G network, claiming the service would cause congestion. But now, the New York Times reports that Major League Baseball's live stream "will play regardless of whether an iPhone is connected to a WiFi network or a 3G network."

This spring, Free Press sent a letter to the FCC asking the agency to confirm that wireless networks must adhere to the Internet Policy Statement, which protects consumers' right to access any online content and services on any device of their choosing.

Free Press policy director Ben Scott says that "this is exactly the kind of arbitrary intervention in the open Internet marketplace that consumers should fear in an industry dominated by powerful network owners," and states the need for AT&T to "provide consumers with the same access to any online video service of their choice."

Senator John Kerry's post to the SaveTheInternet.com blog (6/16/09) looks at the fact that "nine of the most popular 10 phones are locked in a deal with one of these big wireless carriers," and how this corporatization limits the new medium:

Here's the issue I think we need to wrestle with: Wireless service providers are largely deciding what phone you can use. We don't see that happening in similar markets.

Your broadband provider doesn't decide what kind of computer you can connect to at the end of your DSL or cable wire. And 40 years ago, the FCC ruled in the historic Carterfone decision that AT&T couldn't pick and choose which phones can and can't connect to its network.

The pertinent question Kerry comes to is: "Is the status quo the right model for maximizing innovation, competition and consumer choice? Or do we need a change?"

Today's Democracy Now! (3/9/09) features Amy Goodman reporting that "a House Appropriations subcommittee has... asked the FCC to look into the allegations" of media activists across the country:

Community media groups are accusing the telecom giant AT&T of discriminating against local public access channels across the nation, and the deadline for public comment is midnight tonight. The dispute centers around how AT&T delivers public television stations to customers. Instead of putting the stations on individual channels, AT&T has bundled community stations onto a generic channel that can only be navigated through a complex and lengthy process. Public television advocates say AT&T is imposing unfair restrictions that will severely restrict audiences.

AT&T itself declined to have representatives on Goodman's broadcast, so she went ahead with three community media advocates, including the "former head of the National Federation of Local Cable Programmers, now known as the Alliance for Community Media," which is encouraging those concerned to participate in the Federal Communications Commission "public comment period [that] ends at midnight eastern time tonight."