A new media technologist focused on equitable solutions for a just society.
You are currently browsing the Cable & Broadband blog category.
TV stations across the nation each handled the EAS test differently, with some opting to voluntarily suspend programming with informative test screens.
The first nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) occurred today at 2:00 PM EST. While we wait for the final word from broadcasters and cable companies and the subsequent compiled report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), anecdotal reports are streaming in online from across the nation with mixed reports of the effectiveness of the test, with many TV viewers and radio listeners reporting that the media outlet they were tuned to either failed to deliver the entire test message (both on-screen textual data as well as audio) or failed to switch to alert mode at all. DirecTV viewers claim to have heard pop music instead of a test message, while others (including me) had a very difficult time getting TiVo and other DVRs to tune back to regular programming after the “end of message” tones.
According to CNN, viewers in major markets like New York, Washington, Atlanta and California all reported failures. In Rhode Island I have first-hand reports from individuals tuned to WWLI-FM, the primary EAS station for Providence, who heard static and garbled audio followed by some discernible voices exclaiming “Jesus Christ, this isn’t working!” It is unknown if these voices originated at WWLI or from another station “upstream” in the EAS chain.
As far as Full Channel’s participation, it receives its primary information from WWLI-FM and passed exactly what was broadcast over FM on every analog channel and force-tuned digital set-top receiver (customers watching on digital set-tops are automatically tuned to analog version of TV Guide channel to ensure the message is received properly from the analog-based EAS system). Given that the audio channel was garbled, the system’s receiver was unable to decode the digital message normally encoded in WWLI’s broadcast.
In Santa Barbara, I was tuned to cable, over-the-air digital TV as well as three radio stations. All five outlets broke programming at some point a few minutes after 11:00 AM PST with KVMM-CD (a digital Class A TV station on channel 41) passing the on-screen textual message apparently as intended with information indicating that it had received the alert from KRUZ-FM. KEYT-TV, viewed through cable, broke programming with its own branded slate, but apparently did not pass any textual message from EAS on-screen.
On the radio side of things, I was monitoring KCSB-FM, KTYD-FM, as well as KCLU’s Santa Barbara translator K272DT. All three stations broke programming at different times, with KCSB being the first (in fact the DJs were talking about the test in the minutes leading up to it in anticipation). KCSB’s alert audio was garbled and static-filled. By the time KTYD and KCLU had activated their alerts, KCSB was returning to regular programming. All three stations appeared to pass poor quality low audio alerts along with static.
Although the FCC has scoffed at the idea that this test was a failure, saying that it was intended to uncover and address weaknesses in the system, it is discouraging that it took 50 years since the inception of the post-WWII CONELRAD system to coordinate the first nationwide test (albeit without the next generation CAP compliance yet) of broadcast media just as the once-ubiquitious stations themselves are stepping aside to make room for broadband and digital mobile technologies which are left out of the EAS loop altogether. It would seem that following this schedule, we will have the EAS problem licked just in time for the advent of telepathic entertainment!
Posted November 9, 2011 at 19:46. Add a comment
July 8, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.
Re: H.R. 1981 – Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011
To The Honorable Members of Congress:
I would like to take this opportunity to submit my thoughts and concerns on H.R. 1981, Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. I was contacted by committee staff on this matter so that I could provide the perspective of a small, family-run, cable business as my family runs Full Channel here in Rhode Island. Full Channel was started in 1965 by my grandfather John Donofrio. His vision for an expansive landscape of information delivered to the living rooms and fingertips of ordinary Americans was groundbreaking. In 1982, after nearly 20 years of preparations and government hearings, he was the only individual businessperson to be awarded a cable television franchise in the State of Rhode Island. By the turn of the millennium, Full Channel remained as the only independent cable and broadband provider in the state and continues to serve the local needs of its three communities, employing local residents and supporting schools, charities and local governments.
Today Full Channel remains a valued local provider, serving homes and businesses in Bristol County, Rhode Island, by delivering digital television, broadband Internet and phone services. The company employs more than 20 local residents as sales and service representatives, technicians and engineers. Public access personnel deliver municipal government meetings, community events and other public service programming through Full Channel’s three local television channels allocated to the communities. In 2009 the company was lauded as a “Top Operator” by the industry trade publication CableFAX. This summer, the Town of Bristol’s council chairman thanked Full Channel in a written statement for bringing “greater transparency to government” by delivering local meetings to the TV sets of residents.
To be perfectly clear, I personally, and Full Channel as an organization, are champions of protecting children from all forms of abuse and exploitation, and we support the very reasonable ideals of H.R. 1981. There is no doubt that protecting our children online continues to provide a challenge in every family, and it is timely and appropriate for Congress to consider what role the Federal government can play in that effort. However, I have serious doubts about the proposed language in that it may open a wide door to conducting electronic surveillance on every Internet-subscribing American citizen in a manner that is redundant to other statutory requirements such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), may prove too costly to small businesses implement and may expand the data that companies are compiling in ways that go beyond child pornography and really touches upon broader privacy issues.
H.R. 1981 is a bill aimed at the distribution of child pornography, a sin that is on the short list of the most heinous offenses in our modern society. Intelligent, well-respected individuals may argue the merits and dangers of gun control, net neutrality, same-sex marriage and even abortion and come out unscathed relative to a witness emerging from a testimony even remotely tainted by the topic of the exploitation of children.
In 2007, Full Channel and the rest of the nation’s Internet service providers began to implement CALEA, which codified the implementation of modern day digital wiretapping. CALEA gives Federal and local law enforcement protocols for the speedy access to live data from a suspect’s digital connections with proper court documentation (i.e., a warrant or subpoena). When a provider is subpoenaed by a law enforcement agency to retain electronic records under CALEA they must comply.
The systems to support CALEA were expensive for small companies like Full Channel to implement; however, they have functioned seamlessly when called into action. Since its inception, Full Channel has had very few requests for information relating to crimes against children. Using these existing CALEA protocols, our staff is able to quickly respond to a subpoena and provide data. However, these instances are clearly infrequent. Adding a new statutory obligation for small businesses that will result in new costs doesn’t seem merited with this in mind. I am not sure where the “problem” with existing data collection and wiretapping law exists.
With that in mind, it concerns me that this bill asks that we collect our customers’ historical personally identifiable information for 18 months on the remote chance that they may have engaged in the transfer or distribution of child pornography. This seems to be an impingement on the privacy of everyday citizens.
Furthermore, H.R. 1981 discriminates between service providers, applying to those who deliver communications services via landline, but not to those who do so wirelessly, leaving gaping holes in this new so-called “security” system. In fact, the bill provides a full exemption from the data retention requirements for wireless providers like cellular giants AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, publically-accessible WiFi hotspots (i.e., Starbucks, college campuses and libraries) and new WiMax installations popping up throughout the U.S. If all of the nation’s providers – wireline and wireless alike – are not held to the same standard of data retention, the burden borne by small companies like Full Channel to implement these systems will be in vein because criminal predators will easily connect to nearby cellular data networks or a neighboring resident’s or business’ open WiFi connection, which are all exempt from the proposed requirements.
The few brief lines in H.R. 1981 that address digital communications not only serve to create gaping holes in the bill’s objective, but also serve to create a competitively unfair environment where landline providers, especially small businesses like Full Channel, are at a distinct economic disadvantage by being held to a higher standard than wireless providers. In an era when the federal government is scrambling to repurpose much of the citizens’ wireless spectrum for the deployment of wireless broadband, it only seems prudent to hold traditional landline and wireless broadband providers to the same level of accountability and responsibility. To do otherwise hurts small business and will have a chilling effect on the deployment and expansion of broadband, especially in underserved and rural areas. By forcing only landline providers like Full Channel to shoulder these new regulatory burdens, it is effectively a regressive tax. This tax may be spread across millions of subscribers in larger organizations; however, small businesses like Full Channel will be hit especially hard by these financial constraints, with the profound effect of having to pass along the government implemented costs to consumers.
I urge the committee to reconsider the data retention requirements in H.R. 1981 because they are inequitable and ineffective on a number of fronts. The tools to apprehend predators are already in the hands of law enforcement under CALEA. I would argue that more resources should be devoted directly to the men and women of law enforcement dedicated to protecting children, rather than on the implementation of carte blanche data collection on the entire population of American landline Internet users.
Respectfully submitted,
Levi C. Maaia
Vice President
Full Channel TV, Inc.
Posted July 8, 2011 at 10:30. Add a comment
After extensive research, negotiations and technical preparations, Full Channel has made Bristol County, R.I. the fourth U.S. cable TV market to offer Al Jazeera English to its viewers. The Qatar-based news outlet launched an Arabic-language channel in 1996 and for years Al Jazeera was widely misunderstood by western audiences. After 9/11, many Americans falsely associated Al Jazeera with Osama Bin Laden and other Middle Eastern terrorist outfits. This reputation is due in a large part to remarks made by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who claimed Al Jazeera was “inexcusably biased.”
In 2003, the BBC signed an agreement with Al Jazeera for sharing facilities, information and news footage. And in 2006 Al Jazeera launched an English-language network targeting the Western world. This year in particular, Al Jazeera English has received accolades and praise from politicians and journalists alike who applaud the network’s propensity to report the under-reported as it provided often exclusive coverage of the turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. During testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called AJE “real news” as she criticized U.S.-based news networks for spending too much time on trivial news items such as Charlie Sheen’s breakdown and American Idol winners.
As of this week, Full Channel joins the three only other U.S. TV markets to provide Al Jazeera English: Washington D.C., Ohio and Burlington, Vt. The story has been covered by Providence Business News, WPRI-TV and Multichannel News.
Full Channel viewers will find AJE on channel 168. If you don’t live in one of these four markets you can watch a live feed of AJE online on YouTube or AlJazeera.net.
Posted April 29, 2011 at 01:12. Add a comment
A few weeks back I sent a quick note to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) commending her for a great op-ed in support of Net neutrality, which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 6, 2011. I received this very personal reply from her today. Nice to see that Rep. Eshoo is so responsive, even to citizens living and working outside of her district.
Posted March 3, 2011 at 15:10. Add a comment
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to your story (“Full Channel drops Univision,” PBN.com, Feb. 21, 2011).
You will find in our release that we did not choose to “drop” WUNI from our lineup. The station demanded that we take down their signal. It is Full Channel’s position that Entravision has not negotiated a fair contract in good faith (as required by the Federal Communications Commission) and is using this “blackout” as a technique to extort more money from customers of small, community-based cable operators like Full Channel. Cable customers in more-urban markets are not experiencing the same price increases from broadcasters like WUNI/Entravision.
In a time when the Consumer Price Index for recreational activities, which cable TV falls under, has actually decreased, a 33 percent increase in retransmission fees is exorbitant and particularly troubling when it effectively alienates the Hispanic community WUNI claims to serve.
Your headline implies that it was Full Channel’s choice to drop the Spanish-language network, when in fact Entravision demanded that the signal be suspended, when they would not budge from their offer.
Levi C. Maaia
Vice President, Full Channel
Posted February 28, 2011 at 20:04. Add a comment
This Letter To FCC Chairman Genachowski Regarding Retransmission was filed on February 23, 2011 regarding the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend The Commission’s Rules Governing Retransmission Consent; MB Docket No. 10-71.
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
Full Channel strongly agrees that the time has come for the Commission to review retransmission consent rules in light of recent disputes affecting millions of consumers, many of whom were unprepared for the sudden loss of broadcast network content precipitated by local TV station blackouts. Media Bureau Chief William Lake put his finger on the problem in his speech to the Media Institute last December when he stated: “When a retrans deal expires today, there can be high drama.”
With the Commission preparing to examine the marketplace in which retransmission consent is negotiated, I wanted to bring to your attention an unsettling episode involving Univision affiliate WUNI-TV and my company, Full Channel, a family-owned cable operator in Warren, R.I., with about 7,000 customers. WUNI, owned by Entravision Communications Corp., pulled its signal on Feb. 18 after Full Channel refused to accept a 33 percent increase for retransmission consent and costly demands for multicast channel and high-definition delivery.
In my view, this dispute illustrates the need for new retransmission consent rules that rectify the imbalance of power between an affiliate of the country’s dominant Spanish-language broadcaster and a small cable operator that serves a tiny fraction of TV households within the Providence, R.I.-New Bedford, Mass. designated market area.
Clearly, WUNI’s strategy of granting retransmission consent only in exchange for an exorbitant price hike and other costly demands is aided by several regulations that prevent Full Channel from negotiating as something akin to an equal on the other side of the bargaining table. This artificial imbalance hurts Full Channel’s customers, who are innocent third parties, and it should be addressed as the Commission reconsiders what exactly is acceptable conduct under the statutory requirement that broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) bargain for retransmission consent in good faith.
Full Channel believes it is vital for the Commission to provide new guidance that will yield greater certainty to the marketplace and result in fewer failed deals and dropped signals. Full Channel stands ready to assist the Commission’s search for policy outcomes that protect the interest of consumers when they are victimized by the heavy-handed tactics of a broadcaster like WUNI, which seems to have a rather strained understanding of what it means to serve in the public interest.
Sincerely,
Levi C. Maaia
Vice President, Full Channel
Warren, R.I.
Posted February 28, 2011 at 18:02. Add a comment
HIAWATHA BRAY’S article “FCC OK’s Internet service rules’’ (Dec. 22, 2010 Boston Globe Business) showed some promise for those in favor of Net neutrality, however, the FCC’s vote to approve new rules governing the Internet fell far short of President Obama’s campaign promise to protect online free speech and commerce … [read the entire letter at boston.com]
This opinion piece originally appeared in the Boston Globe on Dec. 28, 2010.
Posted January 27, 2011 at 10:08. Add a comment
This is my response to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s recent announcement in which he backpedals from his initial promise to support Net Neutrality. It seems that the term the FCC has coined “Open Internet” is what he is lobbying for now. This so-called “Open Internet” falls very short of the free speech protections needed to ensure continued growth from all sectors, not just media conglomerates.
Mr. Genachowski:
As vice president of a small cable operator and Internet service provider, I often find myself swimming upstream against the cable industry tides. Again, I find that my opinion is in opposition to that of most cable and phone companies, but I have not hidden my position on Net Neutrality from my industry colleagues.
The value of high-speed Internet service is based on the existence of an open and free network. Without that freedom, the Internet will become the nightmarish legal quagmire that cable and satellite TV tiers have become: a corporation-controlled landscape of confidential deals and force-fed consumers.
I am concerned about the recent developments that threaten free speech on the Internet. Less than five years ago, congress was poised to attack the cable networks’ programming tier model by mandating a-la-carté offerings. Today, amidst the political distractions of our nation’s other, seemingly more pressing woes, the Internet is edging closer and closer toward a locked-down oligarchical model and a disastrous future for consumers and small businesses alike. My challenge has been convincing other small and medium sized cable operators to see that it makes good business sense for them to support a neutral Internet, as a network under any other structure will stifle free speech under the control of the largest of the media giants.
I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to reconsider and take a stronger position in favor of Network Neutrality. As an advocate for the American people you owe it to them to protect online freedom of speech, which in the 21st century, is as important as any other.
Levi C. Maaia
Vice President, Full Channel
Warren, R.I.
Posted December 9, 2010 at 18:22. Add a comment
The IEEE has a great article online about the radio spectrum shortage we are facing as demand increases for mobile broadband products. Here is a quick response:
The article mentions the glaring inefficient use of radio spectrum by broadcast digital TV (DTV). Even after the DTV transition, broadcast TV still occupies nearly 300 MHz of radio spectrum to directly deliver signal to just 10% of TV viewers. However, most cable and satellite operators also get signals from local TV stations over the air and then retransmit them through their respective systems. This is an abysmally inefficient way of delivering video to consumers and a waste of valuable spectrum. Our current scenario is a point-to-point delivery (TV station to cable provider) using a wide-area broadcast model which blankets the region with signals that few actually tune directly.
We need to develop a cost-effective point-to-point delivery system (either microwave or IP) for cable and satellite operators if we are to replace the out-dated model of VHF/UHF broadcast TV. Given that nearly no one receives mobile DTV and less than 10% of TV viewers watch fixed DTV from their home, it makes sense to begin to reclaim this spectrum for broadband applications. The best solution would be to require stations to share multicast frequencies and begin the process of spectrum reclamation. Begin this reclaimation slowly at first and then as the 10% shrinks even further, get more aggressive. Given current trends toward IP mobile video, in 5-10 years there will be nearly no one – except cable and satellite providers – receiving broadcast signals over the air.
Instead of providing low-cost DTV tuners and subsidizing the wasteful DTV transition, the Feds should be subsidizing broadband development in rural areas and providing free, very basic Internet and IPTV to qualifying homes.
Posted October 14, 2010 at 14:15. 1 comment
The Internet has quickly evolved into one of our most important national resources. However, a recent court decision may change what you have access to through your online connection. UC Santa Barbara communication researcher and network neutrality expert KK Holland talked with Tim and I this morning about the pros and cons of the issue. Listen to the show.
Posted May 18, 2010 at 12:02. Add a comment
