UnCommon Sense TV - “Media Bill of Rights” An overview on the “Bill of Media Rights” as promoted and advanced by a large coalition of organizations and activists working towards a more democratic media system. The program includes a point-by-point description of the principles inherent in it and required for a media system that is truly reflective of and responsive to the needs and interests of the public. Amongst these discussed are the inherent rights to free expression, and for access to the platforms for being able to receive that expression, particularly those whose accessibility is provide through “net neutrality” and well-funded local public access. The program also features a brief history and overview as to the importance of media to the functioning of, if not the very existence of, a truly democratic society (including segments from the documentary film “Manufacturing Consent”).

Good question, and one posed in the Carolina Issues Forum by UNC grad students Katie Gay and Samantha McNeill, as they drive the point home about the inherent importance of public access to communication.

Monopoly is no longer just a board game; it is reality for cable subscribers in Wilmington, NC. Perhaps the Parker Brothers were trying to warn the public by designing a game in which the main goal is to bankrupt other players by accumulating the most money and property. The objectives are similar to those of Time Warner Cable (TWC). Although TWC has a non-exclusive franchise, meaning other cable companies could technically provide cable service within Wilmington if granted a franchise, they have dominated the cable market in Wilmington mainly because their infrastructure is already in place. In Monopoly terms, their houses, or cables, are on every block. Just like in the board game, competition requires an extended amount of time and money, which other cable companies are not willing to spend since TWC’s infrastructure is in place. This means we, the citizens of Wilmington, are stuck with TWC and their virtual monopoly.

And the story gets worse. As citizens of Wilmington we once had the right to give our input on which cable companies we wanted the city to grant franchise agreements. This right has been taken away. In 2007, a new North Carolina media law, “An Act to Promote Consumer Choice”, was enacted. According to the statute, the State instead of the City now issues franchise agreements with cable providers. This prohibits citizen input regarding what cable company serves our area. In a sense, TWC holds a “get out of jail free card” which allows them to maintain total access to our city. Thus, the “Act to Promote Consumer Choice” is in reality an Act to Deny Citizen Contribution. Beginning this year, 2008, when the City franchise expires, TWC may be free to jack up prices and provide substandard customer service throughout Wilmington.

We can relate to the monopoly analogy not only because we have all played a time or two, but more importantly, because the rules of the game are deeply ingrained within us. In a society dominated by corporations, we have learned to live as consumers. The rules, in
theory, are simple. The more competition we have in a market, the more likely we will receive higher quality goods for lower prices. Let’s assume that logic to be true and move on to the real issue, the question that never gets asked. Even if we did have competition, does consumer choice equal democracy? Democracy is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. This means institutions such as our media system are supposed to serve us, not the other way around. But, what does it mean to have a media that serves the people, why does it matter, and how does this relate to Wilmington’s situation?

At its roots, the media has a democratic function ensured by the First Amendment. The framers of our Constitution knew that freedom of press‚ and freedom of speech‚ are vital to democracy. Our media is supposed to help us make informed decisions regarding political, economic and social issues. We rely on them. Therefore our media must be viable and independent. However, as our situation with TWC indicates, Wilmington is far from having such a democratic media.

Not only do we have a virtual cable monopoly, we’re not even being fed our small slice of the media pie, our right to independent, public access television. TWC by law must provide Wilmington space on its television cable for public access, education, and government (PEG) channels. However, the City of Wilmington is not taking full advantage of this opportunity. This is unfortunate because public access is our voice uncensored. Public access media is run by the people and for the people. It provides community members and local non-profit organizations the opportunity, knowledge and equipment to produce their own cable programming. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech unite so that we as citizens have the chance to share our opinions and interests.

We can have this valuable community resource right here in Wilmington if we demand it. It is time that we stand up for ourselves as citizens, not merely as consumers. It is time that we band together in recognition that Wilmington has allowed TWC to hijack our city’s media and demand an independent public access channel in return.

This kind of thing will keep happening as long as our rights are continued to be defined through the limitations as being those of expression rather than as ones of communication.

Contact Katie Gay and Samantha McNeill

This film is an excellent example what I am all about supporting and pursuing in regards to some of these issues of mediated communication as not only a primary tool in support of human rights work, but as human rights work. It is arguably the most important factor involved in it. The response to the Burma situation is only happening because of this kind of work. This film is a distillation of the very reason any human rights movement that does not encompass mediated communication within it’s core is incomplete. “Burma VJ” is in a nutshell a form of “Exhibit A” in making the case for such inclusion.

He lives in Thailand now, largely because he doesn‚t think he could hold up under torture. “I’m not sure how much I could keep secrets,” said the slight, shaggy-haired, 27-year-old Burmese video journalist, who is considered a public enemy by his country’s military junta.

Should his admission make him seem less than courageous, consider Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country. Directed by Anders Ostergaard of Denmark and opening on Wednesday at Film Forum in New York, the documentary chronicles the work of the Burmese journalist and his team of guerrilla cameramen during the “saffron revolution” of 2007, in which robed Buddhist monks joined street protests against Myanmar’s military dictatorship.

—————

Moviemaking philosophy aside, Burma VJ provides powerful evidence of the new ways in which oppression can be documented and world opinion swayed. “Technology is on our side,” said Micheline Lévesque, Asia specialist for Rights and Democracy. She said reports on human-rights violations, when done outside a country like Myanmar, are routinely ignored by countries that want to continue doing business with an oppressive regime. It’s harder to argue with a Burma VJ and the technology it champions, the eventual influence of which may be enormous. “Tibet is very interested,” Ms. Lévesque said, “and other movements in other countries are looking to what’s happening in Burma to use in their own movements.”

—————

But you go forward a hundred years, you have a situation in film where two cellphones talk to each other, and it’s impossible for a military dictatorship to keep secrets.

“Can you imagine,” Ms. Nevins added, “if someone had smuggled a camera into a concentration camp?”

Read more Here from The New York Times

Yep. It is.

Public ownership is a better plan. Broadband networks are here for the long haul, and our dependence on them will only increase. Many citywide wireless networks are privately owned, depending on city government as an anchor tenant. The network requires city money without offering the city any control. Under such circumstances, owning beats renting.

———

Ownership is about self-determination. Modern telecommunications regulations mean owners make decisions. A city cannot compel a private provider to upgrade the network or mandate network neutrality. Residents have little recourse when the sole private broadband provider blocks some applications or network protocols.

A number of large private providers have managed their networks in a questionable manner. These companies have one goal. The law requires them to maximize their shareholder value. In contrast, a publicly owned network should maximize social benefit. If it does not, residents can change it. Try getting AT&T to modify its network management policies.

———

Broadband networks have become essential infrastructure. Depending on a private network may be the easier course of action, but gives away too much power. Network owners make decisions; they do not have to beg providers for faster speeds, lower prices or better customer service.

Read The Full Report

UnCommon Sense TV - “BIG MEDIA, Little Democracy, Pt.2″ A continuation of the discussion concerning the ongoing developments in national media policy and the very real world effects those policies are having on the ability of our democratic system to function. The program touches on a number of those effects, including the downsizing of America’s journalistic institutions in the pursuit of commercial profit, and the corrosive role big media plays in our ‘pay-to-play’ political system. The program also looks at media entities such as Sinclair Broadcasting, using their access and control over large portions of the public airwaves to pursue private, commercial agendas at the expense of meaningful journalism and democratic pluralism in the public debate.
The presentation once again utilizes research presented by Dr. Jerry Starr in his report to the Columbia School of Journalism.

UnCommon Sense TV - “BIG MEDIA, Little Democracy” This program is the first in an updated series on the ongoing developments in national media policy and the very real world corrosive effects those policies are having on the ability of our democratic system to function. Using research provided by Dr. Jerry Starr, author and Executive Director of Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting, the program presents a clear picture of how a handful of large scale multi-national corporations are acquiring control over nearly the entire nation’s media assets, and what effect that is having on their role in our society and on our political system.
Also featured is a special presentation of the first annual “Big Media Hall of Shame” inductee awards ceremony, presented by Free Press at the National Conference on Media Reform Conference (you’ll have to watch it to find out who wins).

WATCH THE PROGAM

Thank you, President Obama. Don’t think this is the kind of “change” I was “hoping” for.

Obama is about to nominate Mignon Clyburn to the FCC, and for those of you who want the internet to turn into a low-rent version of cable TV, dominated by Rupert Murdoch and a few other right-wing billionaires, this is very good news.

For the rest of us, it sucks.

Mignon Clyburn is a member of some obscure utilities boards in South Carolina… AND…Jim Clyburn’s daughter, and it isn’t because of those obscure utilities commissions way down in Dixie that Obama is about to put Mignon Clyburn in a position of tremendous influence over the future of the internet.

Her resume is a joke.

Read The Full Report

This is an interesting story posted by Broadband DSLReports.com about an FCC meeting from last year.

“No matter who you are, or where you live, or how much money you make… you will need, and you are entitled to have these tools (broadband) available to you, I think, as a civil right,” said FCC commissioner Michael Copps during yesterday’s broadband hearing in Pittsburgh. Users around here enjoy fighting over whether broadband is a luxury or necessary utility, but suggesting it’s a civil right is a new wrinkle.

I knew I liked Michael Copps, and no only do I hope he stays on at the FCC, but am disappointed with Obama for not appointing him chairman of it. He poses a core question which, from the numerous comments posted by readers, seems to strike many as irrelevant or illegitimate (and may be a ‘new wrinkle’ to some as a concept, but is actually directly related to ongoing efforts in the global democratic communication movement to establish communication rights).

Some comments from readers strike closer to the heart of understanding regarding this primordially important issue….

As one reader commented, “Mankind has made 99.99999999% of its most important discoveries without broadband. Its not a right or a necessity but a luxury. If you can afford it great. If not and it’s important, then time to evaluate your financial situation.”

Mankind may have made 99% of the most imporant discoveries without broadband, but without communication 0% would have occured or mattered.

I believe that access to the primary methods of communication in any age is a fundamental right. From gestures and grunts, we moved to a spoken language. Then from a spoken language we invented cuneiform script. The alphabets followed and were followed by signaling techniques, then electromagnetic transmissions. Those EM signals are being improved through compression allowing even more data to be passed. At one time, letters were good enough for anyone, telephones were a luxury. Then, data service was a luxury for only the largest of companies and banks.

As you can see, the future technology is always the luxury, but the prevalent form of communication IS a necessity and access to it is a bona fide civil right.

The question shouldn’t be if broadband should be a right or not, but rather, is broadband internet access now the predominant form of communication? Once that answer is ‘yes’ then the idea that it is a right should be automatic.

If it is not the ’standard’ yet, it will be very very shortly.

————

Re: “Civil Right? Not yet…” Nice reply!

Also consider the Middle Ages when the State and the Church tried to limit Books and The Bible to only the State and the Church thus keeping the people and peasants just that - people and peasants. The world didn’t begin to grow until everyone was being educated to
read and write. I suspect that you will find that in education today that the kids who do better are the one that have access to a computer and internet in the home.

Read The Original Post

UnCommon Sense TV - “Interview With Phil Donahue” An exclusive interview with Phil Donahue, the founding pioneer of the television talk show. Phil joins UnCommon Sense TV producer and host Andy Valeri for a lengthy discussion on the state of America’s media system today and the changes it has undergone over the years. Amongst various topics touched on are the growing domination of corporations over our media system, an increasingly uninformed and misinformed electorate, the war in Iraq, the importance of and need for dissent in our politics, and more. A uniquely informal, candid and challenging conversation with one of America’s preeminent media figures.

From the folks at Free Press via internetnews.com…

The Internet is changing our country by changing how we interact with our media and government, said speakers here at the Freedom To Connect conference on Tuesday.

“We’re talking about more than technology and politics here,” said Timothy Karr, campaign director for Free Press. “We’re talking about a movement.”

Karr defined three movements that are working together: the movements for media reform, free culture and open government. Each has coalesced around a specific crisis and has survived to influence future policy decisions.

Karr said that the media reform movement was forged in the public battles over spectrum and then over battles on public access to private cable networks. The free culture movement is growing out of copyright battles in social media such as Facebook and YouTube.

It will become a truly full-fledged “movement” when it moves beyond organizing for the “freedom to connect” to that of insisting upon the “right to connect”.

Movements that struggle for real transition and transformation, the kinds that are devoted to investing in and creating systemic and lasting change, the kind that cannot nor will not be ‘repealed’, are the ones that fight for defining rights, not regulatory policy.

As Rutgers law professor James Pope once said…

“A real rights movement conducts the struggle over a long-term time frame, and it fights over issues of basic principle.”

It was, after all the civil rights movement, not the civil regulatory movement.