---

December 7, 2007

Web Access and E-Mail on Flights

On Tuesday, JetBlue will begin offering a free e-mail and instant messaging service on one of its aircraft. David Neeleman, the company's founder, demonstrated the new service.

By SUSAN STELLIN

Passengers may soon hear a new in-flight announcement: “You can now log on.”

Starting next week and over the next few months, several United States airlines will test Internet service on their planes.

On Tuesday, JetBlue Airways will begin offering a free e-mail and instant messaging service on one of its planes, while American Airlines, Virgin America and Alaska Airlines plan to offer broader Web access in coming months, probably at a cost around $10 a flight.

“I think 2008 is the year when we will finally start to see in-flight Internet access become available,” said Henry Harteveldt, an analyst with Forrester Research, “but I suspect the rollout domestically will take place in a very measured way.” “In a few years time,” he added, “if you get on a flight that doesn’t have Internet access, it will be like walking into a hotel room that doesn’t have TV.”

The airlines’ goal is to turn their planes into the equivalent of wireless hot spots once they reach cruising altitude. These services will not be available on takeoff or landing.

Virgin America even plans to link the technology to its seat-back entertainment system, enabling passengers who are not traveling with laptops or smart phones to send messages on a flight.

The network can potentially be used as well for communications within the plane, like food and drink orders — something Virgin America already does with its seat-back system.

While the technology could allow travelers to make phone calls over the Internet, most carriers say they currently have no such plans. Many travelers find the prospect of phone calls much less palatable than having a seatmate quietly browsing e-mail.

Onboard phone calls are “one of those ‘just because you can doesn’t mean you should’ types of technologies,” Mr. Harteveldt said. “The last thing you want is to be in a crowded tube at 35,000 feet for two or three hours with some guy going on and on about his trip to Vegas.”

While companies have been promising airborne Internet service for years — the aircraft maker Boeing offered a system that was adopted by a few international carriers but is now defunct — JetBlue will be the first carrier in the United States to offer access to the Web, at least in a limited way.

Yet if a test flight on Wednesday is any indication of the challenges that airlines and their technology partners face in trying to offer Internet connections at 35,000 feet and 500-plus miles an hour, travelers can initially expect travails that recall the days of dial-up access — slower and more prone to glitches than connections on the ground.

“Sometimes you just have to put things out there and see what happens when people try to use it,” said Nate Quigley, chief executive of LiveTV, a JetBlue subsidiary responsible for the airline’s Internet service as well as its in-flight entertainment system. “We’ll find the bugs and eventually get them worked out.”

After years of false starts, LiveTV is one of several companies aiming to introduce in-flight Internet access in 2008. LiveTV’s air-to-ground cellular system, however, functions only over the continental United States. It also involves a hand-off process between cell sites as a plane travels across the country.

Since LiveTV’s proprietary network uses spectrum space licensed from the Federal Communications Commission that was once reserved for seat-back phones, it does not interfere with cellphone service on the ground. But the hand-off process does create the potential for the airborne equivalent of a dropped call — a problem that occurred during the test on Wednesday.

It is also one of the reasons JetBlue is not charging passengers to log on.

“Why charge for something that doesn’t work very well yet?” said David G. Neeleman, JetBlue’s founder and chairman, a self-described BlackBerry addict.

JetBlue and LiveTV are betting that their messaging capability is more important to travelers than surfing the Web, which requires more bandwidth and therefore a fee.

But other companies are convinced that plenty of travelers will pay for more robust Web access. That view is bolstered by a recent survey by Forrester Research that found that 26 percent of leisure travelers would pay $10 for Internet access on a two-to-four-hour flight and 45 percent would pay that on a flight longer than four hours.

“I think that the airlines will see that the demand is there,” Mr. Harteveldt said, adding that besides sharing the revenue from these fees, airlines could potentially earn money from advertising on these services or use the cabin’s Wi-Fi network to enhance their operations.

“The airlines can justify the cost if only for their own operational efficiencies,” said Jack Blumenstein, chief executive of Aircell, which is developing its own air-to-ground cellular network.

Aircell has already arranged partnerships with American Airlines and Virgin America and plans to install its equipment on an American 767-200 this month.

The airlines would not predict a date when it would become available to fliers, but Mr. Blumenstein said it would probably be ready to go by early spring.

A third company competing to offer airborne Internet service is Row 44, which is developing a satellite-based system that will also function over oceans and internationally, though the plan is to offer service in North America first, said John Guidon, Row 44’s chief executive.

So far, Row 44 has signed a deal with Alaska Airlines, and Mr. Guidon hopes to have the equipment installed on a plane, either with Alaska or another partner, by the second quarter of 2008. That schedule essentially fits Alaska’s plan.

“We’re going to test the system on a single aircraft in the spring,” an Alaska Airlines spokeswoman, Amanda Tobin Bielawski, said, “and based on the outcome of that trial, our plan is to equip our entire fleet by the end of 2009.”

Aircell’s chief executive, Jack Blumenstein, with antenna gear that will be placed on the exterior of planes. Aircell has already arranged partnerships with American Airlines and Virgin America.

One potential pitfall, from a regulatory and technical standpoint, is that the connectivity would make it possible to initiate voice-over-Internet phone calls using services like Skype. American and Alaska will not allow phone calls with their services, but Charles Ogilvie, director of in-flight entertainment and partnerships for Virgin America, said, “We’re definitely not automatically ruling anything out.”

That may send chills down the spines of frequent travelers, many of whom are strongly opposed to the prospect of dozens of chatty passengers in a confined space, which was one of the reasons the F.C.C. decided against lifting the ban on cellphone calls in planes.

“I absolutely would not be in favor of voice,” said Jeff Haber, a real estate lawyer in Los Angeles, adding, though, that he would like Internet access in the air, even if he had to pay for it. “One of the things that’s nice about airplanes is that people aren’t on cellphones all the time.”

Facebook hangs its head over ad system

After a massive protest, the networking site alerts users they can opt out of the controversial Beacon.

By Jessica Guynn
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

10:39 AM PST, December 5, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO — Beacon, the online advertising system that was supposed to light Facebook Inc.'s way to riches, has created such a dark storm of controversy that Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg today told users they could turn it off.

The dramatic reversal in the face of huge public outcry is an attempt to restore the company's battered image with its more than 55 million users and the marketers trying to reach them. Zuckerberg posted a mea culpa on the social networking site's blog (http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=7584397130).

"We've made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we've made even more with how we've handled them," Zuckerberg wrote in notifying users that they could opt out completely. "We simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it."

Facebook last week tweaked the Beacon system, saying it would no longer alert users' friends about what they do and buy on the site without their explicit permission. The move came in response to a mass online protest led by political activist group MoveOn.org, which in two weeks organized more than 50,000 users. But the changes did not appease privacy experts who have been sharply critical of Beacon.

Beacon is an online tracking tool that keeps tabs on the goods and services Facebook users buy or rent on partner sites such as Fandango.com and Blockbuster.com, then broadcasts those activities to friends on a news feed. Marketers hoped the system would get their brands in front of Facebook users.

Instead, users complained that the system was too intrusive and even ruined Christmas surprises when they saw what gifts their friends and family were buying.

MoveOn.org and privacy advocates pressured Facebook to give users a way to opt out of the system.

"Facebook's policy change is a big step in the right direction, and we hope it begins an industrywide trend that puts the basic rights of Internet users ahead of the wish lists of corporate advertisers," MoveOn.org spokesman Adam Green said in a statement.

Sean Lane, who joined the online protest after a surprise gift to his wife of a white gold and diamond ring from Overstock.com was broadcast to everyone in his Facebook network, posted on MoveOn.org's protest wall: "This is a pretty powerful feeling. Honestly, I didn't think that people could make changes like this through civil action. I am very proud to be a part of this!"

But another Facebook user, Andrew C. of Ithaca College, who posted on the wall, remains concerned: "The blog also did not address the fact that even if we turn Beacon off they [Facebook] will still be receiving information about our activity on third party sites. I want to know what Facebook is doing with information and how I can keep them from even having an inkling of what I am doing on other sites."

Facebook could not immediately be reached for additional comment.

When users first complained, the site argued that it offered two ways for users to keep information from reaching their friends and that users would soon become accustomed to it. When the protest continued, it tried to appease users with tweaks such as making opt-out boxes larger and having them remain on the screen longer.

The dilemma confronting Facebook is common to Internet companies that rely on advertising for revenue: how to generate revenue from users without alienating them.

"Facebook has succeeded so far in part because it gives people control over what and how they share information," Zuckerberg wrote. "This is what makes Facebook a good utility, and in order to be a good feature, Beacon also needs to do the same. People need to be able to explicitly choose what they share, and they need to be able to turn Beacon off completely if they don't want to use it."

Borat's driving instructor sues

Mr Psenicska said his encounter with Borat (right) had been 'surreal'

A US driving instructor who appeared in the Borat movie has taken legal action against its makers, claiming he thought he was taking part in a documentary.

Baltimore resident Michael Psenicska is seeking more than $100,000 (£48,860) in damages from actor Sacha Baron Cohen, 20th Century Fox and other parties.

Distributor Fox said Mr Psenicska had been paid for his involvement and had given his consent to be filmed.

The action is one of several that have been brought against the 2006 comedy.

Several unwitting cast members, among them two college fraternity members and residents of a Romanian village, have sought redress for how they were depicted.

Mr Psenicska, a high school mathematics teacher who also owns a driving school, was reportedly paid $500 (£245) in cash to give Cohen's bogus Kazakh journalist a driving lesson.

Financial success

The film shows Mr Psenicska struggling to control his pupil who drives erratically, drinks alcohol and yells at a pedestrian.

In his action, filed in the US District Court in Manhattan, the driving instructor said he had been told the film was a "documentary about the integration of foreign people into the American way of life".

Had he known the film's true nature, he said, he would have never participated.

Mr Psenicska said he was entitled to damages because the defendants used images of him to advertise the film.

A Fox spokesman, however, said the action had been prompted by the film's financial success.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan has made more than $260m (£127m) worldwide, before DVD sales.

Sacha Baron Cohen will shortly be seen alongside Johnny Depp in Tim Burton's movie musical Sweeney Todd.

CBS eyes "Dexter" for edited broadcast

Wed Dec 5, 2007 12:15am EST

By Georg Szalai and Nellie Andreeva

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - As the Hollywood writers strike enters its second month with no end in sight, recycling cable series on broadcast networks is becoming a reality.

CBS Corp. president and CEO Leslie Moonves said that CBS is planning to run some series that air on its Showtime cable unit, including the breakout hit "Dexter."

"'Dexter' is probably the first one to go on -- with some edits," Moonves told reporters at UBS' Global Media & Communications Conference in New York. "It fits with our crime shows."

The edgy, offbeat "Dexter," which has become a critical and ratings success for Showtime, stars Michael C. Hall as a Miami police forensics expert who moonlights as a vigilante serial killer.

CBS, of course, is the leader in the forensic crime drama genre with the "CSI" franchise.

Moonves didn't specify when "Dexter" would launch on CBS beyond saying it should come "in the near future."

Now in its second season on Showtime, "Dexter" has broken ratings records for the premium cable network. Its November 18 episode ranked as the most-watched in Showtime history.

In addition to "Dexter," CBS also is considering Showtime's racy period drama "The Tudors," which originally was developed for CBS, and the critically praised dark comedy "Weeds," about a marijuana-peddling soccer mom. However, both will need heavy editing to make it to broadcast primetime.

CBS chief research officer David Poltrack said after Moonves' presentation at the conference that it was hard to forecast how well Showtime's programming would do on the broadcast network, particularly because of what would have to be edited. He noted that Showtime's programming of "Dexter" and "Weeds" generally rated high or higher than broadcast fare in CBS Corp.'s testing of viewer satisfaction.

"There's no reason why that wouldn't translate" from pay cable to broadcast, Poltrack said.

With their scripted series running out of original episodes, the broadcast networks have been exploring the idea of recycling series from their sister cable networks as a strike contingency.

NBC has been rumored to be looking at a potential second window on the network for such series as USA's "Monk" and "Psych" and Sci Fi's "Battlestar Galactica." This week, NBC exercised its option to recycle "Law & Order: Criminal Intent," which had moved from the broadcast network to USA in the fall.

According to sources, Fox and ABC, which are considered the least vulnerable in case of a long strike because of their strong reality slates led by their respective blockbuster hits "American Idol" and "Dancing With the Stars," have not yet seriously considered borrowing fare from such corporate siblings as FX, ABC Family and Lifetime.

Although almost all long-running broadcast series run in cable syndication, the leaps in the other direction are still rare.

ABC has been the most active, rerunning "Monk" in 2002 and the first season of ABC Family's "Kyle XY" in 2006.

The talks with Showtime are part of CBS' aggressive strategy to prepare for a long writers walkout. On Monday, the network announced a strike-impacted midseason schedule that includes three hours a week of "Big Brother," as well as fresh episodes of reality veteran "Survivor," the quiz show "Power of 10," and procedural crime drama reruns.

An Open Letter to the Entertainment Industry

Last week, we offered the Writers Guild of America a New Economic Partnership, designed to lead our industry into the 21st century global marketplace.

Our proposals included new offers in new media: compensation for streaming video, jurisdiction over certain new media content and residuals for content delivered over alternative digital channels. These proposals are in addition to payments currently made to writers for paid digital downloading.

And ours is not a “take it or leave it” offer. It is designed to allow both sides to engage in the kind of substantive, give-and-take negotiation that can lead to common ground.

The WGA leadership asked for five days to review our proposals and respond. So, with the ball in the WGA’s court, we look forward to what they have to say when we meet today.

The Facts:

• Our proposals would give writers more than $130 million over the three-year contract, on top of the annual $1.3 billion in payments they currently receive.
  
  
• For example, under the plan, by the third year of the contract, a writer who delivers a script for a feature film will receive a MINIMUM of approximately $115,000, an increase of nearly $10,000 over the current contract. And the writer of a one-hour television network pilot will get a MINIMUM of more than $44,000, up from the current $41,634. Keep in mind, all such payments are made even if the film bombs or the television show never makes it to air. And the minimums are in addition to residual payments that can continue throughout the writer’s life.
  
  
• Our offer will maintain and strengthen the writers’ generous health and pension benefit plans – two of the best in the country. Writers can continue to enjoy the plans without having to make any contributions themselves.

The Future:

The fallout from the WGA’s decision to strike has been strong and far-reaching. But what we have witnessed so far is just the tip of an iceberg of economic dislocation if an agreement cannot be reached before January.

A long strike is bad for writers and producers alike. But it is disastrous for the thousands of workers and businesses who will lose income and livelihoods even though they have no direct stake in the outcome of this dispute.

We owe it to our industry and this community to engage in good-faith negotiations so we can reach a prompt and just settlement.

This is not a zero-sum campaign where there is one winner and one loser. We need the writers, and the writers need us. And we need to work together if we are going to navigate the rapids of this increasingly complex, high-tech economy.

We choose to remain hopeful, because the alternative is simply too bleak to contemplate. It is in this light and spirit that we look forward to the WGA leadership’s response today. Just saying “no” is not an option. Together, we must find a way to say “yes.” We hope that kind of progress can begin this week.