DOCSLIB.ORG

Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission S. HRG. 112–846 OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 16, 2012 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 86–477 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Feb 03, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\86477.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine BARBARA BOXER, California JIM DEMINT, South Carolina BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia MARK PRYOR, Arkansas ROY BLUNT, Missouri CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico MARCO RUBIO, Florida MARK WARNER, Virginia KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire MARK BEGICH, Alaska DEAN HELLER, Nevada ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Republican Staff Director DAVID QUINALTY, Republican Deputy Staff Director REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Feb 03, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\86477.TXT JACKIE C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on May 16, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 3 Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 3 Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 4 Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 30 Statement of Senator Boozman .............................................................................. 31 Statement of Senator Blunt .................................................................................... 33 Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 34 Statement of Senator Rubio .................................................................................... 36 Statement of Senator Toomey ................................................................................. 38 Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 40 Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 42 Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 43 Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 45 Statement of Senator Warner ................................................................................. 46 Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 47 Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 48 WITNESSES Hon. Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission ... 4 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 Hon. Robert M. McDowell, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commis- sion ........................................................................................................................ 9 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 APPENDIX Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commis- sion, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 51 Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commis- sion, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 52 Hon. Ajit Pai, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, prepared statement .............................................................................................................. 53 Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Julius Genachowski by: Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 54 Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 58 Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 63 Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 65 Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 66 Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 71 Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 72 Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 74 Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 77 Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 78 Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 81 Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 83 Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 88 Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 91 Hon. Jim DeMint .............................................................................................. 101 Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 102 Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 104 Hon. Roy Blunt ................................................................................................. 105 Hon. John Boozman ......................................................................................... 106 Hon. Patrick J. Toomey .................................................................................... 107 (III) VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Feb 03, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\86477.TXT JACKIE IV Page Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Julius Genachowski by— Continued Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 111 Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 113 Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Robert M. McDowell by: Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 116 Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 117 Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 118 Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 121 Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 122 Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 123 Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 125 Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 127 Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 128 Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 128 Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 130 Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 135 Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 141 Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 141 Hon. Roy Blunt ................................................................................................. 142 Hon. John Boozman ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unscrambling the FCC's Net Neutrality Order: Preserving the Open Internetâ•Flbut Which
    UNSCRAMBLING THE FCC's NET NEUTRALITY ORDER: PRESERVING THE OPEN INTERNET-BUT WHICH ONE? Larry Downest I. INTRODUCTION This article offers a critical reading of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") December 23, 2010 Report and Order entitled "Preserving the Open Internet."I This year-long proceeding, concluded just as the 2010 lame duck Congress was about to adjourn, resulted in significant new regulations for some broadband Internet access providers. The new rules enact into law a version of what is sometimes referred to as the "net neutrality" principle. Proponents of net neutrality regulation argue that the Internet's defining feature-and the key to its unarguable success-is the content-neutral routing and transport of individual packets through the network by Internet service providers, a feature of the network that requires strong 2 protection and enforcement by the FCC. The FCC describes its new rules as rules of the road to ensure a "level playing field" for application and other service providers in accessing U.S. markets, consumers, and devices.3 t Larry Downes is Senior Adjunct Fellow with TechFreedom. His books include LARRY DOWNES, UNLEASHING THE KILLER APP: DIGITAL STRATEGIES FOR MARKET DOMINANCE (Harvard Business School Press 1998) and, most recently, LARRY DOWNES, THE LAWS OF DISRUPTION: HARNESSING THE NEW FORCES THAT GOVERN LIFE AND BUSINESS IN THE DIGITAL AGE (Basic Books 2009). This article was adapted from testimony delivered on February 15, 2011, before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and Internet. Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality andAntitrustBefore the H.
    [Show full text]
  • Headquarters | 65 South Grand Ave | Pasadena CA 91105 | 626 792
    October 6, 2017 The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20544 Dear Chairman Pai: As you are aware, Hurricane Maria effectively destroyed 100% of the power grid in Puerto Rico and rendered over 95% of the cell sites out of service immediately after the storm. Two weeks after and – as reported in the daily Federal Communications Commission (FCC) statistics – cell service outside of San Juan is still almost non-existent. Even in San Juan, more than 62.6% of cell sites remain inoperative. Landline based voice and Internet networks have suffered almost total degradation. The U.S. Virgin Islands communications systems were similarly ravaged not only by Hurricane Maria but weeks before by Hurricane Irma. Per FCC statistics, all of St. John’s cell sites are still inoperative. This lack of even basic communications hampers essential emergency and medical services and undermines critical relief efforts. Additionally, while the people of these islands continue to work together to rebuild their lives, the inability to contact employers, education providers, and loved ones contributes to the ongoing sense of isolation and crisis. We appreciate all the steps you have already taken, including issuing an order making immediately available up to $76.9 million from the FCC’s Universal Service Fund for the restoration of communications services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, we write to ask you, and your fellow Commissioners, to take additional steps to highlight the communications crisis, reassure the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands that the FCC is working for them, and to take any measures you can to assist in restoring emergency services.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC's Knowledge Problem: How to Protect Consumers Online
    The FCC’s Knowledge Problem: How to Protect Consumers Online Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING ABOUT REGULATION: COMPARING THE FCC AND THE FTC .................................................................. 205 A. The Regulator’s Knowledge Problem....................................... 206 B. The FCC’s Prescriptive, Ex Ante Regulatory Approach .......... 208 C. The FTC’s Flexible, Ex Post Enforcement-Based Approach ... 212 II. NET NEUTRALITY AND THE FCC: A CASE STUDY IN REGULATORY DIFFICULTY ..................................................................................... 214 A. What is Net Neutrality? ............................................................ 215 1. Proponents of Net Neutrality Regulation .......................... 215 2. Opponents of Net Neutrality Regulation .......................... 216 B. The FCC’s History of Broadband Regulation: The Road to Reclassification ........................................................................ 218 1. Broadband as a Title I information service ....................... 218 2. The Verizon Decision ........................................................ 220 3. The Aftermath of Verizon ................................................. 221 Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission. I would like to thank Neil Chilson for his contributions to this essay. The views expressed here are solely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any other individual Commissioner. Portions of this essay were adapted from a keynote
    [Show full text]
  • The High Cost of Doing Nothing on Net Neutrality Introduction
    ISSUE BRIEF: Q4 2019 UPDATE THE HIGH COST OF DOING NOTHING ON NET NEUTRALITY INTRODUCTION Business Forward has organized hundreds of briefings across the country on technology and innovation, collecting recommendations from local business leaders on a range of issues, from how to protect IP to helping small businesses use the internet to find new markets. Few issues are as important – or contentious – as net neutrality. This issue brief explains why net neutrality matters and offers a path to achieving it. The term “net neutrality” was coined in 2003, capturing the belief that the best way to ensure an open and vital internet is to prevent network operators from interfering with traffic to favor data from some sites or applications over others. Without net neutrality, network operators could censor viewpoints, stifle startups by charging exorbitant tolls, or undermine competition by favoring their own web offerings over their competitors’ offerings. With net neutrality, companies operating at the “edge” of the network are more likely to invest in distance learning, telemedicine, media streaming, and other new, data-intensive businesses. FOUR DIFFERENT FCC CHAIRS, SERVING TWO PRESIDENTS, SUPPORTED NET NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLES, POLICIES OR RULES – BUT THEY LACKED CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THEM. The FCC began working on ways to promote net neutrality in 2004. Four different FCC chairs (Michael Powell, Kevin Martin, Julius Genachowski, and Tom Wheeler) serving two presidents (George W. Bush, Barack Obama) issued net neutrality principles, policies or rules. But federal courts or subsequent FCC orders struck down these efforts. Martin’s “policy statement” was found to be unenforceable because it wasn’t a formal regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 10Th Annual Seixas Award Dinner Low Memorial L
    Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 10th Annual Seixas Award Dinner Low Memorial Library at Columbia University New York City April 27, 2010 On Receipt of the Gershom Mendes Seixas Award Thank you, Dean Lehecka. For so many of us you’ve been the heart and soul of this great school, and it’s a particular honor for me to have you present this award. Thank you to the Columbia/Barnard Hillel, and in particular Dr. Judy Schwartz and Simon Klarfeld. Thank you Robert Kraft. We are moved by your words of unity tonight, and by your long list of stunning accomplishments, including the rebuilding of the Hillel here. Congratulations to my longtime friend Jay Lefkowitz. Considering our somewhat divergent political paths – Jay working for Presidents Bush 41 and 43, I for President Obama and Senator Schumer -- I don’t always cheer when Jay is on the winning side. But tonight is certainly not one of those times. Jay richly deserves this award, and I applaud him. A few months ago, someone called saying they wanted to give me an award whose previous recipients include Robert Kraft, Arthur Sulzberger, Edgar Bronfman, and Herman Wouk. My immediate thought was … they’ve made a mistake. Growing up I rooted for the Jets, not the Patriots. I read Newsday more than the New York Times. I’ve been very fortunate to work with Edgar Bronfman Junior, but have never met his father. And then I realized. I was finally being acknowledged for something I’ve accomplished that I didn’t know anyone knew about, but of which I’m quite proud: Reading every word of every one of Herman Wouk’s great books.
    [Show full text]
  • July 18, 2012 Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 12Th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Re
    July 18, 2012 Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Letter, CG Docket No. 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36 Dear Chairman Genachowski, Open data and an independent, transparent measurement framework must be the cornerstones of any scientifically credible broadband Internet access measurement program. The undersigned members of the academic and research communities therefore respectfully ask the Commission to remain committed to the principles of openness and transparency and to allow the scientific process to serve as the foundation of the broadband measurement program. Measuring network performance is complex. Even among those of us who focus on this topic as our life’s work, there are disagreements. The scientific process happens best in the sunlight and that can only happen when as many eyes as possible are able to look at a shared set of data, work to replicate results, and assess its meaning and impact. This ensures the conclusions from the broadband measurement allow for meaningful, data-driven policy making. Since the inception of the broadband measurement program, those of us who work on Internet research have lauded its precedent-setting commitment to open-data and transparency. Many of us have engaged with this program, advising on network transparency and measurement methodology and using the openly-released raw data as a part of our research. However, we understand that some participants in the program have proposed significant changes that would transform an open measurement process into a closed one. Specifically, that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a proposal to replace the Measurement Lab server infrastructure with closed infrastructure, run by the participating Internet service providers (ISPs) whose own speeds are being measured.
    [Show full text]
  • March 25, 2013 Chairman Julius Genachowski Commissioner
    March 25, 2013 Chairman Julius Genachowski Commissioner Robert McDowell Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Commissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, SW Washington, DC 20054 RE: WC Docket No. 12-375, Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services Dear Chairman and Commissioners: As organizations with a strong interest and expertise in criminal justice policy, we write to urge the Federal Communications Commission to adopt into final rules the proposals in the long-pending Wright Petition. We are pleased the Commission has finally opened a proceeding to develop a factual record that will enable the Commission to adopt final rules ending predatory prison phone rates for long-distance calls. As groups that work to improve the criminal justice system, we see firsthand the challenges that high telephone rates pose, and write now to specifically emphasize how the high costs of telephone calls negatively impact the overall societal goal of reintegrating formerly incarcerated individuals to be full participants in society. Prisons charge incarcerated individuals significantly higher rates for phone calls than what most people in the United States are charged. The cost of a typical interstate collect call from a prison includes a $3.95 connection fee (regardless of the length of the call), while per minute rates can be as high as $0.89. This results in charges of $10-17 for a 15-minute collect call or $300 per month for a weekly one-hour call. Maintaining family relationships is a primary means to reduce recidivism, which is at crisis levels in the United States. Within three years of being released, 67 percent of ex-prisoners re-offend, and 52 percent are re-incarcerated.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC Is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality As a Law Volume 1 (2) 2015
    The FCC is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality as a Law Volume 1 (2) 2015 Fast Lanes without Slow Lanes: The FCC is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality as a Law Matthew C. Quattrochi* 1. Introduction The overall purpose of this work is to discuss the current state of net neutrality. Given Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Tom Wheeler’s most recent proposal to pass net neutrality into law, net neutrality is ripe for discussion.1 The court ruling striking down the infrastructure of the Open Internet Order in Verizon v. F.C.C., and the devaluation of Title I regulatory authority exhibited in the decision made in Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C. bring about an appropriate point to stop and reflect concerning the options the FCC has to instill net neutrality regulation.2 Part II of this work will be dedicated to explaining net neutrality and addressing the overall question of whether net neutrality needs to be enacted into law. Part III will be dedicated to discussing Verizon v. F.C.C. and Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C. as well as other applicable case law concerning net neutrality violations. Part IV will address FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s most recent net neutrality proposal, now law. Part V will consider the authoritative options that the FCC has in regulating net neutrality violations. * Matthew C. Quattrochi is a 3rd Year law student at Barry Law School in Orlando Florida. He is an Orlando Chapter Attorney Liaison and the member of American Constitution Society.
    [Show full text]
  • “Light-Touch” Internet Regulation
    THE USE AND ABUSE OF “LIGHT-TOUCH” INTERNET REGULATION JOHN BLEVINS ABSTRACT The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) recently repealed network neutrality regulations. In doing so, the agency claimed to be restoring the traditional “light-touch” deregulatory approach that successfully guided Internet policy for decades. Today, this version of history—what I call the light- touch narrative—provides a key normative foundation for deregulatory policy. It also influences current interpretations of positive law. Indeed, the FCC’s legal authority to repeal network neutrality rules relies on statutory interpretations reflecting these historical assumptions. This Article contends, however, that the light-touch narrative has become misleading, because it relies on flawed understandings of the Internet’s history. It assumes that today’s Internet access providers are the legal equivalents of earlier data and dial-up service providers. As a result, policymakers cite the deregulation of these earlier entities to justify deregulating modern access providers—an approach that is both normatively and legally problematic. To illustrate these problems, this Article examines the origins and evolution of light- touch Internet regulation. It then explores the legal and policy implications of this history, particularly with respect to the FCC’s recent network neutrality repeal and its legal challenges. John J. McAulay Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. I would like to thank Adam Gershowitz, Johanna Kalb, and John Lovett for helpful advice. 177 178 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 99:177 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 179 I. AN OVERVIEW OF LIGHT-TOUCH POLICY APPROACHES ......................... 185 II. THE ORIGINS OF LIGHT-TOUCH POLICIES ................................................ 194 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon’S Blocking of Google Wallet: Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No
    Barbara van Schewick Associate Professor of Law Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305-8610 Tel 650 723.8340 Fax 650 725.0253 [email protected] VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND ELECTRONIC MAIL December 19, 2011 Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Verizon’s Blocking of Google Wallet: Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191; Broadband Industry Practices, WC Docket No. 07-52; Service Rules for 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150; File No. EB-11-MDIC-0004 Dear Chairman Genachowski: Two weeks ago, various news outlets reported that Verizon Wireless’s new Galaxy Nexus phone, an Android device that went on sale last Thursday, will not support Google Wallet, Google’s mobile payment application.1 Based on what we know from press reports, it seems that Verizon Wireless is violating the open-devices and open-applications conditions in its legal licenses for part of the 700 MHz spectrum (the so-called “C-Block”) over which the company’s LTE network operates. There is, however, great uncertainty about what exactly is going on. I am writing to ask the Commission to investigate the situation as quickly as possible and to send a signal to the market – innovators, consumers, and licensees – that the openness conditions will be enforced. The outcome of this case has important implications not only for the mobile payments market, but also for any application or service potentially available on a mobile network. First, Verizon’s behavior hurts Verizon customers, a full 35% of the mobile market, who are unable to use the very first mobile payment technology based on near-field communications that has come to market.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Watch Congressional Staff Panel 10 -11Am HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE SUBCOMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS & TECHOLOGY
    2020 MTA Annual Meeting - Monday, August 24th Washington Watch Congressional Staff Panel 10 -11am HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE SUBCOMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS & TECHOLOGY JERRY LEVERICH SENIOR COUNCIL, MAJORITY STAFF Gerald (Jerry) Leverich serves as a Democratic Counsel to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Prior to joining the Committee in 2015, Jerry served as the primary telecommunications attorney in the Office of the General Counsel at the Government Accountability Office. Jerry received his law degree, cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center and his bachelor’s degree in political science from the College of Charleston. KATE O'CONNOR CHIEF COUNCIL, MINORITY STAFF Kate O’Connor is the Chief Counsel for Communications and Technology with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. O’Connor previously served as the Chief of Staff for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, where she worked on legislative and communications policy issues affecting spectrum and broadband issues. She also worked with state government officials and other federal agencies to advance White House initiatives on broadband and 5G. Prior to joining NTIA, O’Connor worked in the United States Senate. She began her Senate career working in the office of Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) and then served as a Legislative Assistant for Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), where she handled issues before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, including telecommunications policy. Ms. O’Connor attended the University of Chicago, and is originally from Chicago, IL. SENATE COMMERCE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE OLIVIA TRUSTY POLICY DIRECTOR, MAJORITY STAFF Olivia Trusty is policy director over the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet, and the Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2009 College Broadcasters, Inc
    Volume 6, Issue 1 www.askcbi.org Fall 2009 College Broadcasters, Inc. Austin welcomes college media convention Spend Halloween in Austin, Texas at on NPR newsmagazines Morning Edi- the largest gathering of student journalists tion, All Things Considered and Weekend Convention registration fees and advisers in the world. The Associated Edition. Rich Boehne, president and chief Early bird rates, those registering by Collegiate Press, College Media Advisers executive officer of the E.W. Scripps Oct. 12, 2009: and College Broadcasters, Inc. will host Company, and online media pioneer Steve • $85 ACP/CBI/Black College the 88th annual National College Media Outing will also deliver keynote speeches. Communication Association Convention Oct. 28-Nov. 1 at the Hilton (BCCA) member students Austin and adjacent Austin Convention Austin media tours planned • $105 Nonmember students Center. Signup for these tours will take place at • $105 CMA/CBI/BCCA member The four-day event begins Wednes- the CMA information desk. Participation advisers and non-students day with convention registration and a is free for convention attendees, though • $150 Nonmember advisers and handful of specialized, in-depth training some tours require transportation via city non-students workshops on newsroom management bus. Please sign up as early as possible • $40 Spouse/partner/family mem- for newspaper editors, coaching writing, after arriving at the convention to reserve bers not in journalism newspaper design, business and adver- places in these tours, most of which are tising and digital photography. These limited to 15-20 people. Regular rates, those registering on or workshops, along with other multimedia • Watergate Papers presentation by ar- after Oct.
    [Show full text]