CBS Radio rejected American Television Alliance (ATVA) advertising promoting the Local Choice Senate proposal, ATVA said Thursday in a news release (http://bit.ly/1ql8zSX). ATVA, a coalition of pay-TV companies, Public Knowledge and others, recently kicked off a national ad campaign in favor of Local Choice (CD Aug 27 p7), which broadcasters have vehemently opposed. All 50 state broadcaster associations attacked Local Choice, in a Thursday letter to Senate Commerce Committee leaders (CD Aug 28 p10). Four radio stations rejected ATVA’s ads, all owned by CBS: KMOX(AM) St. Louis, WCCO(AM) Minneapolis, KXNT(AM) North Las Vegas and KDKA(AM) Pittsburgh. “CBS’s actions are certainly unethical and deserve the attention of Congress,” an ATVA spokesman said in a statement. “It’s definitely not in the public interest to cut off voices because CBS disagrees with them. Broadcasters are stifling debate the same way they stifle innovation.” A spokeswoman for CBS Radio confirmed that it has not accepted the ATVA ad and told us the ads did not meet CBS Radio’s standards, declining to comment further or say why. NAB declined comment on the CBS Radio rejection. CBS Radio CEO Dan Mason is on the NAB Executive Committee, and NAB has outlined many concerns about Local Choice and opposed attaching it to Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization. ATVA had posted its Local Choice radio ad online earlier this week (http://bit.ly/1tWlWJP). “For America’s TV viewers, there may soon be a new reason to celebrate -- a simple idea called Local Choice could bring an end to programming blackouts,” the one-minute spot said. “With Local Choice, viewers also get to choose which local broadcast channels they want and clearly see on their monthly bill exactly how much these local channels cost. Local Choice will put an end to the back and forth negotiations between broadcasters and cable and satellite companies.” The ad, featuring the sounds of cheering and fireworks, asked listeners to contact lawmakers to back Local Choice.

A three-minute Senate video unveiled this week (http://bit.ly/1lbW9gX) promoting the Local Choice proposal, backed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., is the product of both senators, contrary to some media reports that framed only Commerce Republicans as responsible. The video was first uploaded to the Commerce Republicans’ YouTube page, followed by uploading to the Commerce Democrats’ YouTube page. The video, which features text and spoken word explaining Local Choice, “was a joint effort by Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune to educate people on their proposal,” a spokeswoman for Thune told us. “Both the Chairman and Ranking Member’s staff have met and will continue to meet with the staff of other committee members to brief them on the proposal.” The Local Choice proposal seeks to end TV blackouts and is expected to be attached to Commerce’s Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization legislation, a move broadcasters have opposed (CD Aug 27 p7).

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., will face off against Ed Gillespie, a political strategist and Warner’s Republican Senate opponent in the November mid-term elections, on technology issues Sept. 8. The Northern Virginia Technology Council and Microsoft are co-hosting a debate between the two, framing it as a technology town hall, at the Microsoft offices in Reston, Virginia. “The forum will provide technology business leaders an opportunity to learn about the candidates’ views related to technology and business policy,” the event registration page said (http://bit.ly/1AUS5Wl). “During the forum, the candidates will be introduced while on stage together before appearing separately to answer questions from a panel of technology business leaders and participate in audience Q&A.” Northern Virginia Technology Council Board Chairman Sudhakar Kesavan will moderate, and event panelists will include Microsoft Vice President-Government Affairs Fred Humphries. Warner is the favored candidate in the election, according to the Rothenberg Political Report.

State broadcaster associations from all 50 states savaged the Local Choice proposal, which would overhaul retransmission consent rules and attempt to end TV blackouts. They objected in a National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations letter dated Thursday and expected to be sent Wednesday to the proposal’s authors -- Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., who had circulated the proposal earlier this month. The letter is the latest volley in a lobbying war with the American Television Alliance, a group of several pay-TV companies that launched a national advertising campaign in favor of Local Choice in recent days (CD Aug 27 p7). The American Television Alliance has now posted its newspaper (http://bit.ly/1qLc4zn) and radio (http://bit.ly/1tWlWJP) ads on its website. “If adopted, the proposal will unjustifiably eliminate television broadcasting’s longstanding statutory right of retransmission consent and unfairly single out the free, over-the-air, local television broadcast industry for mandatory ‘a la carte’ treatment,” the state broadcaster associations said, saying Local Choice “will very negatively impact television broadcasters and all of the nation’s viewers.” They “strongly oppose” including Local Choice as part of Commerce’s Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization legislation, expected to be unveiled in September. Local Choice “will destroy localism, including the backbone of our nation’s Emergency Alert System, by denying fair compensation to broadcasters without providing consumers, who continue to complain loudly about the monthly cost of pay-television service, with any meaningful choice or relief,” the broadcasters said. Local Choice would mean “less resources to invest in newsrooms, journalists, and local programming and perhaps even fewer broadcaster outlets to cover local affairs and emergencies in the future” and it would “chill the willingness of broadcasters to cover controversial issues of public importance.” It could chill “the journalistic and editorial decisions of every station” and throw “the economics of the nation’s local television broadcast system into chaos,” the letter said. Mandated a la carte pricing would “increase prices, decrease programming diversity, and result in fewer -- not more -- choices for consumers,” state broadcasters said, worrying it could “upend the network-affiliate relationship with potentially devastating consequences for the networks, for their affiliates and for the financial markets.” There’s also a good chance Local Choice “will likely become the slippery ‘a la carte’ slope that broadly upsets a vibrant and functioning video marketplace.” The state broadcaster associations listed several questions and considerations, asking about what would happen to existing retrans deals and how pay-TV providers would be held accountable. They asked about how Local Choice would affect reverse compensation agreements, which are tied to retrans fees. They plan to visit Senate Commerce members in Washington and in home offices to “further demonstrate our strong concerns,” they added.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., praised the Department of Transportation for its work developing a proposed rulemaking to ban in-flight phone calls. “I'm glad the Department of Transportation is serious about putting the brakes on a bad idea before it takes flight,” Alexander said in a statement Monday (http://1.usa.gov/1tG9IFT). “Banning in-flight cell phone conversations would bring us one step closer to avoiding something that the two million passengers flying each day do not want: to be trapped by a seatbelt in 17-inch-wide seats thousands of feet above the ground listening to the same thing we hear in airports -- arguments with spouses, next week’s schedule, or last night’s love life.” Alexander had introduced legislation to ban in-flight calls late last year following the FCC’s announcement it would address the issue.

House Republicans want input on the USF as part of their fifth white paper on overhauling the Communications Act. Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., issued the four-page document Friday, requesting responses by Sept. 19. “As a partnership between the federal and state governments, and funded by ratepayers, it is essential that we review and ensure the effectiveness of this $8 billion per year program as part of our #CommActUpdate process,” Upton and Walden said in a joint statement. “As technologies have been improved and networks upgraded, we have a responsibility to review the program to find out if the fund is still serving its purpose and if there may be better ways to accomplish its goals.” The paper asked eight questions about the nature of the fund and how the federal government manages the fund’s goals. It asked for input on what the proper state role should be as well as the USF’s role during and after the IP transition. “Are current programs at other federal agencies, like the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (which oversaw the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program) or the Rural Utility Service (which oversees lending programs and oversaw the Broadband Initiatives Program) necessary?” the white paper asked (http://1.usa.gov/1pmX66c). “How should our policies address the existence of multiple privately funded networks in many parts of the country that currently receive support?

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., welcomed the FCC’s move to collect special access data (CD Aug 19 p2). “Collection and analysis of this data will allow the FCC to determine whether special access markets are competitively priced,” Doyle said in a statement Thursday. “If it turns out that telecom giants are taking advantage of deregulated markets and gouging consumers, many of which are small businesses, the FCC should take action to stop them."

It’s time to rebrand net neutrality, said House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Thursday. She launched a competition to allow people to propose a new phrase for the concept on reddit, where people can vote for or against responses (http://bit.ly/1ABvoq3). The term is “ambiguous” and “misused and abused in this debate,” Eshoo said in a video announcing the contest (http://bit.ly/1rouI6k): “The ISPs that stand to benefit from this at the expense of consumers like it that way.” She attacked the FCC’s current proposal under consideration, saying it “could split the flow of online traffic into tiers by offering priority treatment to big online corporations that offer higher fees to broadband providers” and lamented that “most Americans have one or two ISPs available to them, so they'd be forced to accept a broadband provider’s decision to prioritize certain websites over others under the proposed FCC rules.” The FCC has defended its net neutrality rulemaking and tried to push back against the notion that any final plan would allow paid prioritization deals. On reddit, Eshoo said she wants to bring clarity and that the most popular entry will win on Sept. 8, also warning against the use of “vulgar or otherwise inappropriate language.” The reddit post soon amassed well over 1,000 comments. “Internet Independence,” one user suggested. “Net Equality,” another proposed. Others insisted the name is fine. Free Press Senior Director-Strategy Tim Karr also countered the idea, writing on the reddit thread: “How about: Net Neutrality.”

The Senate Commerce Committee plans to mark up Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) reauthorization legislation Sept. 17, industry officials told us this week. That legislation, a joint effort of Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., has not yet been released. Speculation has been rampant that Rockefeller may attach portions of legislation he introduced last fall that would seek to bring parity to online video distributors. Rockefeller and Thune have also floated a discussion draft called Local Choice (CD Aug 13 p4), intended to end TV blackouts and appropriate for inclusion in STELA, they say. Rockefeller and Thune have said they want to tackle STELA in September. Committee spokespeople did not comment Thursday on whether Sept. 17 is, in fact, the markup date.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched a petition Wednesday aimed at Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., seeking transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations (TPP) (http://bit.ly/1tmEhjK). EFF listed several provisions for TPP proposals, including “ongoing access to negotiating texts by all Congress members and their staff with proper security clearance and timely public release of concluded provisions following each round of negotiations,” it said. “We stand opposed to any new version of trade authority that does not include these critical guarantees of transparency, inclusiveness and accountability,” said the petition. EFF has criticized the certification stance of the U.S. government in TPP negotiations (CD Aug 15 p9). The petition had more than 450 signatures at our deadline.