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 calls it

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 dominated by only a handful of large cable operators and studios.

Today consumers experience perpetual price hikes by large operators that already have market dominating purchasing power to decide the fate of new channels. The promises of lower prices through competition from satellite and telecom companies in the video business have never been realized.

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 in 2001, but it was reinstated by the FCC in 2008 due to fears of growing market power of big cable companies."

Diligent media reformers Free Press (8/19/09) have announced a nifty new "online interactive tool to expose phony grassroots groups hired by big phone and cable companies to advance their political agenda." They're talking about "'astroturf' organizations--many of which also work for the health insurance, energy and tobacco industries"-- that "are mobilizing to spread misinformation about Network Neutrality and Internet policies."

The group's graphic presentation "tracks the huge amounts of money that phone and cable companies spend on lobbyists and campaign contributions" and

reveals the contradictory and dishonest claims about Net Neutrality and other issues from top industry executives; and it puts a spotlight on the deceptive activities of groups like FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, NetCompetition and the Heartland Institute.

"The fake grassroots groups are spending major resources to deceive the public and promote agendas of the corporations that sign their paychecks," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press. "We need transparency, accountability and honest debate. The crucial policy decisions being made right now about the future of the Internet must be based on independent research, reliable data and facts. The phone and cable companies must stop distorting the issues and hiding behind their astroturf groups, sock puppets and hired shills."

Along with exposing astroturf groups, the interactive tool features "The Money Trail," which tabulates spending by big phone and cable on an army of lobbyists to push their agenda in Washington.

Some disturbing totals from the past two years: "Comcast spent more than $45 million on campaigns and lobbying," which otherwise "could have provided one year of broadband service to 150,000 households"; and Time Warner Cable spent $24 million on lobbying, instead of potentially having "subsidized 100,000 low-income households for one year of broadband service."

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 Ben Scott explains how

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.

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.

While warning that "an army of lobbyists 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 called on our lawmakers to take action."

Free Press campaign coordinator Misty Perez has sent out (7/15/09) a call to action in light of the astonishing figure that "in the first three months of 2009, the phone and cable industries spent at least $20 million to hire more than 400 lobbyists" in an effort to "push for policies that fatten phone and cable profits while leaving us with an Internet that is too expensive and too slow." Why their sense of urgency?:

Right now, the FCC is crafting a national broadband plan that could fix our national broadband problem. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps called this plan "the most formative--indeed, transformative--proceeding ever in the Commission's history."

We desperately need it. Without such a plan, America has dropped to 22nd place in the world in broadband penetration, with approximately 40 percent of the country still not connected to high-speed Internet services.

If the lobbyists have their way, America will continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the world.

But if we get our way, we can reinvigorate the economy, open up public participation in government, empower a new generation of journalists, and give everyone the opportunity to prosper in the 21st century.

Perez links to a "pretty stunning" online "graphic to see how many phone and cable lobbyists there really are in Washington--and how much is being spent"--and asks that we "tell the FCC to support media that's participatory, open and democratic--and not to hand the keys to the Internet to the old guard."

A Seattle Times op-ed column (7/4/09) by Free Press' Victor Pickard and Joseph Torres discussing the fact that "the public's changing media habits have eroded the newspaper industry's monopoly on the local ad market" describes the corporate response thus: "The big media companies are pressuring Congress to prop up their failed business models by allowing more media consolidation and relaxing antitrust laws so they can collude on new 'pay wall' and pricing schemes."

Reaffirming that "despite the many shortcomings of newspapers, our democracy requires a free and vibrant press," Pickard and Torres still maintain that

these shortsighted measures aren't the answer. We must recognize that the current crisis isn't just about the future of newspapers; it's about the survival of democracy-sustaining journalism. We now have a unique and fleeting opportunity to overhaul our media system and advocate for policies that would serve the informational needs of diverse communities....

For too long, newspapers and other mainstream-media outlets have abandoned their commitment to public service in the pursuit of short-term gains. Even today, many newspapers remain profitable but their corporate owners are burdened by huge debt loads incurred during earlier consolidation sprees.

We need new models whose sole criterion for success is not profit maximization. News isn't just another commodity. Journalism is an essential public service and critical infrastructure. Like many public goods, journalism has never been fully supported by the market; it always has been subsidized. But the advertising-subsidy system no longer works.

Detailing "much that needs to happen to rescue failing news operations while supporting the creation of new ones," the Free Pressers name a radically anti-corporate top priority: "First, we must rescue good assets from bad owners. Journalism is too precious to leave its future in the hands of absentee corporate owners." The Free Press group "recently released a report endorsing five policy proposals that would help sustain newsrooms." Hear more on this important topic on FAIR's radio program CounterSpin: "Jim Naureckas on the Future of Journalism" (7/10/09).

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."

Free Press' new report suggesting "how the government should respond to the current crisis in journalism"--"Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy" (5/12/09)--addresses both "short- and long-term strategies." Among their transformative ideas:

• New Ownership Structures. Encouraging the establishment of nonprofit and low-profit news organizations through tax-exempt and low-profit limited liability company (L3C) models.
• New Incentives. Creating tax incentives and revising bankruptcy laws to encourage local, diverse, nonprofit, low-profit and employee ownership.
• Journalism Jobs Program. Funding training and retraining for novice and veteran journalists in multimedia and investigative reporting.
• R&D Fund for Journalism Innovation. Investing in innovative projects and experimenting to identify and nurture new models.

Free Press' Victor Pickard warns that "the collapse of advertising-supported journalism may leave whole sections of the population without a fully functional press, and that is simply unacceptable for a democracy." He urges consideration of these imaginative initiatives "to help keep reporters on the beat, while also investing in long-term models for public service journalism."

Free Press is welcoming (4/28/09) as "a long overdue step in the right direction" the news that "Cablevision announced plans to offer download speeds of 101Mbps and upload speeds of 15Mbps" without charging "usage caps or overage fees" to users. Research director S. Derek Turner explains that the plan

does, however, beg the question why Cablevision can offer fast access with reportedly no caps or overage fees, when others claim such a plan would cause the sky to fall and an exaflood to break the Internet. We hope this new announcement will put an end to the bandwidth bogeyman.

We also encourage companies like Cablevision to think about the other part of the value equation--price. These days, lower prices are just as important as faster speeds.

For some of the history feeding Turner's healthy skepticism about giant media corporations' claims regarding the Internet, read the fair magazine Extra!: "Deregulation's History of Empty Promises: Net Neutrality and the Supermedia Monopolies" (3-4/07) by Jeff Chester.

Free Press' Craig Aaron and Joseph Torres (Guardian.co.uk, 3/26/09) promptly knock down the scary development in which Nancy Pelosi recently "asked attorney general Eric Holder to consider loosening antitrust laws to help out struggling newspapers by allowing more media mergers. Holder responded by saying he is open to revisiting the rules":

Pelosi's request sounds innocuous at first--after all, struggling newspapers seem to need all the help they can get. But opening the door to more media consolidation is not the cure for the crisis in journalism. More of this bad medicine will only weaken reporting and worsen the health of our democracy.

As a few big companies swallowed up more local media outlets, they gutted newsrooms. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that the industry lost 5,000 journalists last year and has slashed 16 percent of its news staff since 2001. Is it any surprise that fewer people are buying newspapers when reporters are being taken off their beats and bureaus are being shuttered?

But media consolidation hasn't been a disaster only for dedicated journalists or the public who rely on reporters to keep an eye on their leaders. It's also been bad for business.

Just a few years ago, the average profit margin for newspapers was over 20 percent--with some bringing in twice as much or more. But that did not satisfy the newspaper executives or Wall Street. Instead of investing in the quality of their products and innovating for the future, the big media companies have been obsessed with short-term gains. Instead of bolstering their news-gathering or adjusting to the new media landscape, companies like McClatchy, Tribune and Lee Enterprises used these astronomical profits to buy up other properties.

And of course, throughout this process, "federal regulators rubber-stamped these mega-mergers," even though "the media giants took on massive amounts of debt."