In this morning's cover story, 50,000 channels, or endless options of programs and how you want them, the Wisconsin State Journal heavily highlights one side of the possible future of the Internet as presented by the telecommunications industry, while barely touching the opposing argument. The article, written in part by Ely Portillo for McClatchy Newspapers (read the original here) and contributed to by the WSJ's Gayle Worland (text not yet available on madison.com), speculates on the boom of small-audience specific media and how the Internet is playing a major role in that growth.

The story briefly mentions the "Communications, Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006" (text of bill here) passed by the House of Representatives in June. It says the act will, "allow telecom giants such as AT&T to offer television service over their Internet networks in all local markets."

They are only telling you half of the story. Interestingly the article mentions our local community station WYOU and how the station is experimenting with technology to stream programming on the internet. The article fails to mention how the COPE Act reduces the obligations of cable companies to devote channels to public access stations and also allows cable companies to replace local franchises with national franchises. Thereby further diminishing the possibility of finding locally produced content on cable television - this could also include access to local government channels such as Madison City Channel 12.

Also mentioned at the very end of the article is how "The House's telecommunications bill would let the Internet service providers charge content providers and heavy users more than they charge other customers, for example. If those fees were high, the could suppress IPTV (Internet Protocol Television)."

Again, only half of the story. By handing over the keys of the Internet to the big telecoms like AT&T, Verizon and SBC, the government is essentially allowing them to dictate who goes where, who gets preference and how fast we get to our destination - essentially it is much like having a highway for the Bourgeoisie and a second highway for the Proletariat.

While anyone can travel these highways, the Bourgeois highway comes with a toll. Also, the shopkeepers and entertainment parlors have to pay a higher fee to be on the well-maintained and easily accessible Bourgeois highway. The other option is the Proletariat highway, never maintained, it is plagued with potholes, never plowed in the winter, often experiences back-ups due to cattle crossing, and the exit ramps to access the stores and entertainment parlors are often obscured by billboards advertising similar businesses on the Bourgeois highway.

The telecoms want businesses to "pay to play" and small businesses that are becoming more and more dependent on Internet traffic may not have the budget for it. That leaves only room for large corporations with deep pockets on the easy to use and access Bourgeois highway.

The image included with the article is kind enough to include captures from locally produced television programs Chad Vader and McCourt's in Session. The two programs have experienced some success on Channel101, a website that broadcasts low budget television pilots.

The article fails to note that under the COPE Act (and the similar legislation currently before the Senate, the “Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006” - text of bill here), Channel101 will most likely have to pay a fee to the telecoms in order to use bandwidth to broadcast this programming. Depending on Channel101's bottom line, they may not afford it and will have to close up shop. In turn, Aaron Yonda and Matt Sloan, producers of the two programs, will lose a venue to showcase their work.

Simply put, the WSJ owes their readers an article focusing on both sides of this issue.