<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; Ben Scott</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/ben-scott/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:04:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Way Cleared for More &#039;Excessive Media Consolidation&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/29/way-cleared-for-more-excessive-media-consolidation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/29/way-cleared-for-more-excessive-media-consolidation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:39:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Scott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cable TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consolidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunication policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=12484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On news that "today, a federal court threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rule to cap cable ownership at 30 percent," Free Press (8/28/09) comments "the rule served as an important consumer protection from media consolidation and growing cable cartels, and encouraged diversity in ownership in the cable industry."
The media advocacy group's Ben Scott further [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On news that "today, a federal court threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rule to cap cable ownership at 30 percent," Free Press (<a href="http://www.freepress.net/node/72229" target="_blank">8/28/09</a>) comments "the rule served as an important consumer protection from media consolidation and growing cable cartels, and encouraged diversity in ownership in the cable industry."</p>
<p>The media advocacy group's <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/19/on-atts-arbitrary-intervention-in-the-open-internet/">Ben Scott</a> further calls it</p>
<blockquote><p>regrettable that the court tossed out an important public interest protection against excessive media consolidation. Congressional intent in the Cable Act of 1992 is very clear--the goals of federal policy in the cable industry are to promote competition, consumer choice and a diversity of programming. And yet today we have a cable cartel--the video industry is <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/20/indy-filmers-create-most-jobs-own-least-content/">dominated</a> by only a handful of large cable operators and studios.<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
Today consumers experience perpetual price hikes by large operators that already have market dominating purchasing power to decide <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/19/only-english-gaza-news-shut-out-of-us-cable/">the fate</a> of new channels. The promises of lower prices through competition from satellite and telecom companies in the video business have never been realized.</p></blockquote>
<p>While today "the court ruled the FCC's action as 'arbitrary and capricious,'" Free Press reminds us of how "the same court threw out the rule <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1082">in 2001</a>, but it was reinstated by the FCC in 2008 due to fears of <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3423">growing</a> market power of big cable companies."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/29/way-cleared-for-more-excessive-media-consolidation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Bill to Keep Internet Open, Discrimination-Free</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/05/new-bill-to-keep-internet-open-discrimination-free/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/05/new-bill-to-keep-internet-open-discrimination-free/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Scott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[H.R.3458]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Net Neutrality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=11688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Free Press's newest release (7/31/09) touts some fresh congressional legislation that "Would Protect Net Neutrality Once and for All." According to the media reform activists, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 "would protect Network Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online."

Policy director [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Free Press's newest release (<a href="http://www.freepress.net/node/71192" target="_blank">7/31/09</a>) touts some fresh congressional legislation that "Would Protect Net Neutrality Once and for All." According to the media reform activists, the <a title="PDF" href="http://www.freepress.net/files/H.R.3458-7-31-09.pdf" target="_blank">Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009</a> "would protect Network Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online."<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
Policy director Ben Scott explains how</p>
<blockquote><p>the future of the Internet as we know it depends on maintaining freedom and openness online. This crucial legislation will help to ensure that the public--not big phone and cable companies--controls the fate of the Internet.</p>
<p>The rules that govern the Internet must protect economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. If we don't make Net Neutrality the law once and for all, we could see the innovation and promise of the Internet derailed forever.</p></blockquote>
<p>While warning that "an <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/16/telecoms-rally-against-transformative-internet-bill/">army of lobbyists</a> has been unleashed by the phone and cable companies to kill Net Neutrality so they can become the Internet's gatekeepers," Scott maintains that "the momentum is shifting in the public's favor," with "popular support...growing every day"--as evidenced by the fact that "millions have already <a href="http://www.freepress.net/node/add/nbb-fcc-comment" target="_blank">called on</a> our lawmakers to take action."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/05/new-bill-to-keep-internet-open-discrimination-free/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On AT&amp;T&#039;s &#039;Arbitrary Intervention in the Open Internet&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/19/on-atts-arbitrary-intervention-in-the-open-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/19/on-atts-arbitrary-intervention-in-the-open-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AT&T]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Scott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SlingPlayer Mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunication policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=10000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#38;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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keeping up with corporate <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/18/new-media-old-story-telecom-greed/">attempts</a> to abuse new media technology, the activists at <strong>Free Press</strong> (<a href="http://www.freepress.net/node/61581" target="_blank">6/18/09</a>) have a new campaign pointing out exactly what's wrong with the fact that "<strong>AT&amp;T</strong> is allowing Major League Baseball to stream video live to the iPhone on the carrier's 3G network, but is prohibiting other companies like <strong>SlingPlayer Mobile</strong> from doing the same":</p>
<blockquote><p>Last month, <strong>AT&amp;T</strong> admitted to restricting the <strong>SlingPlayer Mobile</strong> iPhone application from streaming live on its 3G network, claiming the service would cause congestion. But now, the <strong>New York Times</strong> <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/mlbcom-streams-live-baseball-games-to-the-iphone/" target="_blank">reports</a> that Major League Baseball's live stream "will play regardless of whether an iPhone is connected to a WiFi network or a 3G network."<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
This spring, Free Press sent a <a title="PDF" href="http://www.freepress.net/files/Wireless_IPS_letter.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a> 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.</p></blockquote>
<p>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 <strong><a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3423">AT&amp;T</a></strong> to "provide consumers with the same access to any online video service of their choice."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/19/on-atts-arbitrary-intervention-in-the-open-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
