I say "likely" because they still need to dot i's and cross t's on the royalty deal itself, but here, Congress approved their ability to do that, and just in the nick of time.

Pandora chief Tim Westergren told us today: "We’re just hugely grateful to our listeners and everyone who moved so quickly to mobilize support. This last weekend was just extraordinary." There you go, the world itself may be collapsing, but at least you know our legislators listened to your pleas to keep your favorite web radio broadcasters in business.

DiMA Thanks Congress for Passing Webcaster Settlement Act

Washington, D.C., September 30, 2008 – The U.S. Senate today approved the Webcaster Settlement Act, and sent to the President this bill that authorizes Internet radio services and agents for copyright owners and performers to negotiate new royalty agreements retroactive to 2006, and that could resolve future disputes through 2015.

The House of Representatives passed the bill September 28.

Jonathan Potter, Executive Director of the Digital Media Association, offered this statement:

“On behalf of DiMA and our Internet radio members, I want to thank Congress for acting quickly to pass the Webcaster Settlement Act. This legislation will enable DiMA and our member companies, and all Internet radio services, to continue negotiating royalty rates with SoundExchange for the years 2006-2015. We are very hopeful of reaching agreement soon, and thereby creating long-term stability that will re-energize the Internet radio business.

"We express great thanks to Senators Wyden and Brownback, and Representatives Inslee and Manzullo for sponsoring the Webcaster Settlement Act and also being great leaders of the Internet Radio Equality Act.

“We are also grateful to Chairman Berman, Chairman Conyers and Chairman Leahy, and Ranking Members Smith and Specter for their leadership on the Webcaster Settlement Act and their ongoing support for Internet radio."

[Digital Media Association]

Congress says the rules, which would give a 48-hour time limit for carriers to transfer numbers between each other, are necessary since carriers have been known to delay processing in a bid to throw as many retention offers as they can at customers trying to switch. The FCC seems to agree that it's a good idea, but was ambivalent as always about when it'd get around to implementing new regulations. [DSLreports]

The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act is sponsored by Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers (who happens to be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) along with Silicon Valley Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren. Conyers' premise:

"The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."

The opponents specifically argue that new competition in broadband networks is what keeps ISPs honest in their dealings with consumers. Michigan Republican Representative Fred Upton is quoted as saying, "Our hands-off policy is working." From what we've seen there, Fred, you are either all wrong, mostly wrong or at least partially wrong. [IDG in NY Times via Slashdot]

The Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act was introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and backed by Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah). CNet points out that the bill sounds like a plan proposed by a startup called M2Z, which wanted to build a 384-kilobit network on this spectrum that was free, but ad-supported. If this becomes a legit spectrum auction, M2Z would presumably be one of the bidders (the FCC insisted that the company play by the usual auction rules). Rep. Eshoo says that her plan will hopefully engender "a new kind of national broadband service provider."

My instinct is that it isn't going to get very far, for assorted reasons:
• No company with enough cash to build a network like this would take the risk on a completely new business model.
• An "ad-supported" system of weak wireless broadband might be more annoying than useful, even for people who can't afford an alternative.
• The unfortunates targeted for this service would still have to buy or be given equipment that runs on the particular frequency band.
• If all you need to do is promise those low speeds, you could more cheaply create a compressed dial-up service that runs over traditional copper-wire phone lines.
• In the recently concluded 700MHz auction, the so-called D Block was left untouched because of its requirement of a nationwide public-safety network.

Sometimes I wish politicians needed higher-ed degrees in order to serve. This scheme could have used expertise in econ, psych, engineering, maybe even a little history. [CNet]

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Worse, they even knocked down two proposed amendments that would have at least paid lip service to holding them responsible for their actions. Now we'll never know just how it deep went, how thoroughly they violated any number of things that just shouldn't be fucked with—rights, laws, etc. [NYT]

P.S. How'd our potential prezzes vote? Unsurprisingly, Obama voted against immunity, Hillary didn't vote (too busy crying) and McCain doesn't like anything with wires, so he okayed the spying.

Mark Klein explained the situation a bit in this video and why he was lobbying against immunity for the telcos—which the FCC declined to investigate. It's this exact bill that's about to pass the Senate, as they've voted to limit debate on it "all but assuring" it gets the rubber stamp. Also included are provisions to essentially legalize the government's actions, effectively expanding its ability to spy within our borders. Scary stuff. [Threat Level, Threat Level]

Like the ones protecting ISPs from getting sued because no-no content whisks through their tubes and that basically form YouTube's lifeline. He also wants to consider making content filtering mandatory, like the insane whole-network one AT&T's thinking about firing up.

Needless to say, this would make Hollywood happier than fecal-eating pigs in shit—Viacom's been fighting YouTube's safe harbor claims in its ongoing lawsuit, for instance. If the safe harbor provisions were strung out, YouTube really would be blasted out of existence, along with any other site that puts up user-generated content. Not that any of that matters more than the almighty dollar to the studios. [Ars]

According to the act, providers of both cable and DSL will be required to report the exact number of subscribers, the technology used to deliver service and the "advertised" speeds. Here's what Ars says will happen next:

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration will use the data to create broadband deployment maps, which it will make available to the public on the Internet. These maps will show what kind of broadband is available in which areas, and will drill down to the ZIP+4 level.

Congress asked for the probe, which would include AT&T, Verizon and Qwest. But National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin saying that the investigation would "pose an unnecessary risk of damage to the national security," and that McConnell and friends "support your determination not to initiate an investigation."

Sorry to get on a soap-box here, but how much longer is this government allowed to subordinate our rights to their not entirely legal whims or cozy corporate partnerships? Like, what, a year and change? Until then, maybe I just won't use the phone. Or the internet. Or cable. Can they wiretap bourbon? [Reuters]

"The problem is that, unlike previous versions of the legislation, Boucher's new bill offers no legal protections for the developers of software like Handbrake. As a result, the tools required to exercise fair use are difficult to find, not as user-friendly as they could be, and not supported by major software companies like Apple and Microsoft. Perhaps worst of all, the law makes it impossible for legitimate software firms (in the United States, at least) to develop new software to make innovative uses of content obtained from DVDs, iTunes, or other DRM-encumbered formats."

FAIR USE Act analysis: DMCA reform left on the cutting room floor [Ars Technica]

Reps. Rich Boucher (D-Va.) and John Dolittle (R-Calif.) introduced their "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship" (or FAIR USE) Act today, one that aims to make crippled DRM illegal. Check it:

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use. Without a change in the law, individuals will be less willing to purchase digital media if their use of the media within the home is severely circumscribed and the manufacturers of equipment and software that enables circumvention for legitimate purposes will be reluctant to introduce the products into the market."

Digital 'Fair Use' Bill Introduced In Congress [Washington Post]

If you've read any past "Tuning Forks," you know I feel nothing but contempt for the current cable company monopoly over who provides my service. With two companies' lines running behind my house, the idea I only have one to choose from annoys me no end.

On top of that, cable prices have been climbing at an absurdly high rate—over the past ten years, rates have leaped almost 70 percent—so the lack of competition is even more galling. Why aren't more people bitching? For one thing, there's the so-called triple play, whereby providers can offer cable TV, Internet service and phone service. If you're told the bundle costs X, you're less inclined to look at what your individual cable bill costs. But since I haven't gone with VoIP yet, I know full well how much I'm shelling out for my mediocre cable service.

In any case, this week, Congress, at the behest of the phone companies, decided to get into the middle of this mess. I'm not a big fan of this type of intervention—I believe generally, Congressional intervention only makes things worse. But when it comes to the cable monopoly, it may be the only option. So it got my attention last week when the House told telecom providers that unlike cable companies, they wouldn't have to approach every town to seek permission to offer next-generation television services, like IPTV.

This particular bill was sponsored by Texas Congressman Joe Barton (R) who, interestingly enough, gets a sizable chunk of money from both cable providers and phone companies. (I wonder how Comcast is feeling right now about the $27,000 opensecrets.org says it contributed to Barton last year?) Barton's bill goes on to the Senate, now, where it is likely to pass in some form or another. This was originally attached to the net neutrality amendment, which would have prevented ISPs from charging more to high-bandwidth users who download things like video. But Congress didn't see the need to protect consumers, and tossed net neutrality in favor of ramming the franchise exemption through.

Barton claims his bill will do three primary things:

1. Provide more choices and more control for consumers.
2. Clear roadblocks on the information superhighway.
3. Create jobs and strengthen the economy.

The first two are enviable objectives, but the last one sounds like political BS.

Barton adds, regulations that govern cable stifle competition and prop up prices and that American consumers are used to being able to look for the best deal. Fair enough, but I personally think it's because once a cable company lays lines to your home, it has exclusive access to your business. If you want to open up competition, force cable companies to open their lines to other cable companies. They did it with the phone companies, for crying out loud, and look what happened to long-distance rates.

Later this week, the Senate is supposed to take up a compromise proposed by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R). Apparently, Stevens' bill preserves consumers' ability to surf anywhere on the Net, but doesn't ban ISPs from charging for specific content that companies like Microsoft and Google are seeking. IOW, online video fans beware.

One of the other issues surrounding this bill is that cable companies believe telcos will cherry pick their towns, offering IPTV service only to areas with higher incomes. It's illegal, but not hard to believe, even though the Telcos deny it's their intent. To top it off, Congress plans to put that regulatory wonder, the FCC, in charge of making sure the phone companies don't. Can't you just imagine Telco Legree rubbing his hands together at the prospect of an agency as inept as the FCC regulating the phone company steamroller? It's like asking a Little League commissioner to oversee drug testing for Major Leaguers—he'd be out of his league. Oh, wait...

What this boils down to is cable companies and telcos fighting to force their own agenda on consumers while telling us it's for our own good. Meanwhile, Congress, ever obliging and the one-time guardian of the people, is really only interested in placating industry lobbyists and corporate interests. As to what's going to happen down the road, suffice it to say that it's all likely to work out in the end...for them.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

Though the Mobile Adult Content Congress seemed to be a big hit this past week in Miami, and everyone knows that bringing cellphone-based smut to the masses is a billion dollar business, many cellphone operators aren't buying into the idea so readily. Already, Europe is steeped in tens of millions of dollars worth of mobile porn, with Vodaphone a big provider (dubbed Vodafilth by the Brits). But in the US, X-rated sales distributed via cell phones last year were not so high (Remember, friends, before you twirl the meat, ask yourself WWJDL?). The get-your-porn-on-the-fly congress was much more focused on content rating and filtering devices or age verification mechanisms, that would try to stop underage pervs from getting in on the action, but some people were getting hyped up about the options arrayed before them.

It was all a bit staid and very business-like, but one speaker, an executive identified as James Walz of West Management, did seem to get worked up as he talked about features like "personalized strip teases" and unbridled U.S. market potential.

Yeah James, you go boy, it's yer birthday. In the end, however, the key to this type of technology really lies on whether providers will offer direct billing to their cellphones—and that seems the be a sticking point with companies like Verizon. As Jeffrey Nelson of Verizon Wireless said,

As my grandmother would have said, "fat chance."