Slashdot Mirror
More on Media Consolidation/Deregulation
I'll try to accumulate some links not previously posted. William Safire comments. The Register has an editorial; see also The Guardian for more on the British perspective. Associated Press story. The Washington Post has a good and lengthy (and rare) piece. The phone companies are making a cynical political announcement that they've agreed on a standard for fiber-to-the-home; that doesn't mean they'll ever use the standard, and indeed they've already promised *not* to roll it out anytime soon. Note that the FCC is removing any requirement for the Bells to share their fiber, so if Verizon runs fiber to your house, you'll be able to get Verizon service or none at all.
I'm looking to buy all Slashdot ID #'s in the 200,000-300,000 range, and post as one mega user. Anyone willing to sell?
They spent the money to run it. I work for a CLEC and we have our own phone switches. If VZ jacks up the prices on their circuits, it will only hurt us for a little while since we flip customers to our own network. I doubt the telecom act of 1996 was meant to create an industry that relied on cheap prices by the bells and only on reselling. If you want to be a player in telecom then you need to invest in some infrastructure.
...so if Verizon runs fiber to your house, you'll be able to get Verizon service or none at all.
Isn't that how it should be? If Verizon foots the cost of rolling out thouands and thousands of miles of fiber, shouldn't they be the only ones who can use it?
That's a bit different from phone lines which were subsidised through tax money and therefore should be open to all. If Verizon is the one paying for the fiber, then it should be theirs to use alone if they please.
The FCC is set to vote on their secret-none-more-secret changes to the media ownership regulations on Monday. If you like the direction commercial radio has taken in the last few years, don't worry about it. If not, moveon.org has some good resources for who to call.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, looking at the cable industry I can only say that deregulation has simply resulted in higher cable bills. Prior to deregulation I paid $9.95 U.S./month for cable, now I am looking at $51.00/month and the only new channels available to me now are things like shopping channels, multiple MTV channels and other crap I have no interest in. In fact, what they have done is packaged channels I did watch into more expensive premium packages meaning I can no longer get Speedvision or others I am interested in without paying even more.
The technology exists for us to be able to purchase channels ala-carte yet we still have to pick "packages" and only have access via the cable companies or the dish companies. Perhaps Apple could help things out the way they have the music industry?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
They should take a leaf out of the way the electricity industry was deregulated in the UK.
One company may own a certain amount of cable (distribution), but any other company can compete to sell power over this distribution network to any customer.
It's a crazy system, but somehow (overpricing gripes aside) it all works very well.
\\ Mitch
NPR ran an interview with FCC Chairman Michael Powell this morning, it is available here.
When was the FCC sold to the telco's and the media?
Compared to the UK situation, where 2 of the 5 analogue broadcast channels are part of the tax-funded BBC? (Along with 5 or more national radio stations, a couple of magazines, a serious web presence, and a newspaper with a very similar agenda).
I really don't think having "only" four or five different TV companies available (to non-cable/satellite subscribers) is a problem - especially when so many people have cable or satellite, giving them literally hundreds of different channels to choose from. Not to mention a huge number of newspapers and magazines, and of course the Internet!
Keep this in mind: For years, the UK had just three different TV companies - the largest one state-owned, and the smallest subsidised. No cable (that came in the 80s), no satellite (same). With or without these changes, US viewers without cable/satellite will have more choice than UK viewers. I'm not holding the UK up as some sort of media Utopia, but it's hardly the disaster area these guys seem to predict!
They just covered this topic on Ted Koppel's Nightline. Barry Diller (who is *against* this deregulation, BTW) appeared along with 1 or 2 other big players. Michael Powell was supposed to appear too, but conveniently cancelled. I say "conveniently" because I really think he's trying to quell the debate now that it's gathered steam, and move forward June 2 with no resistance.
is my father.
--
Dr. Nightmare, Attorney at Law.
Yeah when it starts with "more on" I know it's going to be stupid.
Competition is good unless the network effect is extremely strong.
Basically that means competition is good at bringing down prices but sometimes the benefit of having a single solution that everyone uses is more than the reduction of price that would come with competition.
In this case however I think we have something thats more anti-competative. Phone company A runs fiber to a house (either because they got to the area first or the person in the house requested company A) then when the person with that line decides that company B might have a better service the cost to change companies is prohibitive because company A won't sell its fiber line, or more to the point company B won't use the line from company A that the person already purchased and instead wants them to purchase another line.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
"so if Verizon runs fiber to your house, you'll be able to get Verizon service or none at all."
I would have thought a telco could make lots of money by rolling out fiber connections and then leasing them wholesale at above their costs. They won't have to support end users and the costly call centres, services, network infrastructure and bandwidth that that involves. They'll just have to provide the same infrastructure services that they need to provide anyway.
Where I live, I can get DSL from the my local telco for CAD$45 (1.2mbs), or from a small ISP for $50 (3.5mbs). Apparently the local telco charges ~CAD$20 for DSLAM port leases. I'm glad I'm not paying for useless tech support or a heavily subsidised ISP portal that I would never use. It's easy money: I think they only support the CO, and line from there to the outside of my house.
Usually, I'm a big free market proponent, but even I can see how media consolidation is a bad thing for the average American consumer.
Right now, we have four major television networks: ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS. Watch each network's nightly news broadcasts; they're not all that different. And although news organizations like to say that they're unbiased and "just reporting the facts, ma'am", the way in which you present "the facts" gives a strong indication as to your opinion of it.
"Republicans Hand Wealthy Americans Large Tax Break" vs. "American Citizens Will Pay Less in Taxes" gives a pretty good impression of what the writer thinks of the tax breaks.
I think one post from your painfully-unfunny ass is more than enough per story. You have exhausted your quota and then some, trouble us no more.
But couldn't this be a good thing, If handled right. Internet handled like a utility, not a commodity. No more ISPs going under and customers being sold to another ISP without the user knowing. You could just be given a group of IPs and could use them anywhere withing a given area for wireless or a connection at a variety of sources.
Now I work for an ISP so I know this would have me looking for a new job, but it would be a cool idea if done right. We just have to keep AOL and MSN out of the mix.
Does anyone still remember when the FCC was supposed to HELP the consumer, by regulating the communications industry on our behalf?
now, the FCC serves to help monopolies, by regulating the consumer on the industries' behalf. Why is it that mechanisms to prevent consumers getting screwed always wind up being used against us?
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
I don't understand how forcing a LEC to share their infrastructure promotes growth. It does the opposite.
Would you pay billions to deploy an infrastructure if you were going to be forced by the FCC to let your competition use it? Hell no.
Come on people. Forcing businesses to share what they build is only going to make them not build it in the first place. Letting them keep what they build will encourage competition and give multiple carriers a fair shot at the same market. Granted, the little guys aren't going to be in a position to deploy billions of dollars in Fiber to homes that are only willing to pay $50/mo for service (I don't see this as a winning venture no matter HOW you look at it) but that's what VC's are for I guess.
If it's a profitable venture, the money will be on the table for more than one person to go after it. If it's not profitable (once again, Fiber to the home at $50 a month? Sorry kids, this isn't magic fairy land) then nobody will touch it anyway.
Capitalism is a beautiful thing.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
I'm sick of the BS "I own the network and don't want to play nice with others" argument the Bells push. It's about time to remove the Bells ability to do things like that. What it should be is, for all phone, internet, cable, or other such services, there should be one player that owns the network and make the equipment investment. But they would not be allowed to sell any of it to regular consumers. Instead, they should only be allowed to lease the use of the equipment to anyone that wants it...the Bells, private ISPs, private cable companys, anyone. That way there is no conflict of interest that there is in the current system. All the companies are on equal ground. Consumers have a true choice on who to use. You don't like one company, move on to the next one. It won't matter, because the service is all on the same network, just different content. Interoptibility is flawless. There would finally be true competition to provide the consumer with the best experience.
But unless MAJOR restructuring happens, we'll never see this. The consumer is just the ragdoll being fought over by dogs. Only one dog is a terrier and the other is a rottweiler. Either way, the consumer still has teeth sunk into them.
And there were only 10 channels on cable then. Stop whining.
Just wait till those companies merge into one giant company!
You thought those rolling blackouts in california caused by *ahem* "unethical" energy businesses where fun? You ain't seen nothin' yet! Wait till the enrgy company and the company that owns all the tv and radio stations is the same!
Oh and since the WTO and the IMF continually press developing countries to PRIVATIZE WATER this is going to be the future!
Now I won't need to bother getting opinions from multiple sources, since there will only be one source. Thanks FCC!
And this is better than a public, government-run-and-regulated monopoly how exactly?
I mean, sure, I know why they exist, and why they were created. (And yes, we'd probably be worse off without them, but still, I don't think I'm the only one frustrated with their recent behavior) They were created to regulate and designate the airwaves in the public interest. Except lately they seem to have forgotten those last two words. Cable deregulation was not in the public interest (unless people are interested in paying higher prices). Massive media conglomerates are not really in the public interest.
Seems the FCC is more concerned with helping the big Telcos and special interest groups, instead of caring about what the people have to say.
But I guess that's par for the course in today's government.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
But the new developments and apartment buildings will probably get fibre because its cheaper for the telcos.
We've been paying a surcharge for years for this and there's zilch implemented. My old building that was built in 1949 had twisted wire pair clad in cotton. I thought it was the wire for the friggin' door bell.
The newer ones have had four condictor plastic clad wire sincethen until now. As for fibre to your house, or even street switch box... Fuggedaboudit...
They wait until the infrastructure suffers an irrevocable breakdown (like a pole falling over, an underground pipe getting a back-hoe through it or fire and explosion at a CO,) before replacing a foot of wire.
And even then they're going to use left-over copper wire until its all gone.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I'll try to accumulate some links not previously posted.
Posted about what, Michael?
William Safire comments.
He does? What is he commenting about?
The Register has an editorial;
An editorial, you say? My local paper has one too, but you don't see me obsessing over it.
see also The Guardian for more on the British perspective.
Good advice.
Associated Press story.
This sentence is a fragment; consider revising it.
Listen, Michael. I know you're excited about oppressing me, but you could at least take the time to write meaningful sentences. I've been doing that since before you were born.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
I doubt that.
The "infrastructure" you speak of was built on public property with monopoly protection. It really belongs to everyone. Just giving it to one company gives that encumbent company the ability to rape the public who get to pay the cost of creating uneeded duplicate ifrastructures while suffering the use of ageing equipment. When you live by public protection, you die by it as well. I'd love to see just anyone able to build infrastructure, but I don't think that it's either possible, permitted or required. Alternate networks will be built and we will all pay for them and then the bells will buy the up when they fail because they don't have to co-operate now. Ready for another century of pay per minute rape telco service?
I doubt the telecom act of 1996 was meant to create an industry that relied on cheap prices by the bells and only on reselling.
No it was not. But my fiber that runs from one side of my house to the other and can't hook into the network everyone else is using does me no good. A network only works if the players co-operate. The Bells have promissed us Broadband Stagnation. This is all just more of the same.
Society is really screwed up when this what we have to do to escape such a rape.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
To the FCC chairman? This will create a monopoly and hence drive up prices...As an analogy in my apartment I can only get DirecTV and boy, they are so expensive! Not sure if cable has changed, but I was paying about $30 ess for the same service.
Now it looks like fiber to the home is going the same way, huge price and with little choice.
Chairman of the FCC should be given two choices; Resign or be fired.
StarTux
The companies being regulated have a strong interest in keeping track of and influencing the form regulation takes. The consumer getting screwed is only slightly screwed by any one bit of regulation, so it isn't worth the average voter's time to pay attention.
The same thing happened with the ICC a hundred years ago. The Interstate Commerce Commission was formed (IIRC) because consumers wanted something done about the price of rail transportation on routes where one company had a local monopoly. The actual regulation was influenced heavily by the railroads, though, so it mostly meant that prices went up on the formerly competitive routes.
Then rail started facing competition from truckers, so trucking was regulated too, to make sure the consumer stayed screwed.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechno logy/wm284.cfm
With CLEC's that build out their own networks they can offer their own broadband services to compete with the bells. But you have to pay the $$$ and build your infrastructure.
Gee, I guess only Americans would moderate the truth as 'Troll' or 'Flamebait'.
It's amazing to me that no one has brought up the real pisser in all this. Back in the 20's when radio first started, you could apply for a license for a AM radio station and have it granted FOR FREE. These stations usually grew into media empires of their own. After 15 changes of ownership or whatever all these stations were absorbed like the Borg into the BS we have on the airwaves today. The point is: They got started for FREE! Today you cant buy a AM radio station license for less than 225K, even in the WORST area, becuase you have to transfer the licenses, they stopped giving new ones years and years ago. It's like legal machine guns, you can buy em sure enuff but becuase you can only get an existing one transferred, it costs megabucks. This is true of all broadcast media: it costs somewhere around 100K to even share ownership of some brokedick AM station in Podunk somewheres. Never mind trying to start a radio or TV station in a actual city somewhere poeple might actually listen to you. And this has happened with the *CURRENT* rules in play. This is why the internet still thrives. It's he only place left that big business cannot totally co-opt.
Here's an opposing viewpoint:
The Myth of Media Concentration: Why the FCC's Media Ownership Rules Are Unnecessary
Here's a snippet:
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to modify or even repeal its restrictions on ownership of broadcast stations. Opponents argue that changes to these rules would reduce diversity in an already concentrated market - warning that big media "monopolies" are already limiting what Americans see and hear.
They are mistaken. Despite many mergers in the media industry in recent years, Americans today actually enjoy more diversity and competition in the media than at any other time in history, thanks to cable TV, Internet, the licensing of new broadcast stations and other factors.
Rather than media monopolies, consumers face a bewildering and unprecedented amount of choice. Instead, the real danger to Americans is that outdated and unnecessary FCC restrictions will limit improvements in media markets and technologies, limiting the benefits that they can provide.
it's a BAD fauxking corepirate nazi idea.
just look what happens when you sell yourself/soul/spirit, like there's nonetscape, for monIE?
consult with yOUR creator. many pending events require yOUR attention.
"You don't govern just by polls and surveys," he said. "We have to exercise difficult judgments and abide by the law. If all of our rulemaking was just a case of put them out and take a referendum, things would be a lot easier."
referendum
\Ref`er*en"dum\, n.; pl. -da. [Gerundive fr. L. referre. See Refer.] The principle or practice of referring measures passed upon by the legislative body to the body of voters, or electorate, for approval or rejection...
democracy
\De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.] 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
The owner is staunchly pro-Israel (his name is Israel Asper): so all CanWest media must provide pro-Israel news coverage of the Middle East. Journalists who don't follow this can be fired or suspended. And all CanWest newspapers are required to print company editorials on national and international issues. Even worse, CanWest is pro the current Liberal government: so the government has done nothing during the past few years while CanWest spread.
The Economist had story last year and another story the year before giving details.
__________________________
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Goethe
First FUCK THE FCC post!
So, instead of just feeling bad, powerless, screwed, angry about this mess, do something about it. I did. Go to ACLU Action page to send nice boiler plate text e-mail/faxes to each of the various decision makers in this process.
eye gas it'll be gooed when there's only won channel?
this is like some whoreabull corepirate nazi georgewellian fairytail nightmare, right?
we'll wait patiently for 'news' of more phonIE 'enactmeNTs' to fake place? some are saying this is the BiG won. lookout bullow. vote with yOUR wallet.
Where should I get my NEWS from?!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The proposed model is the very one used for electricity de-regulation in Ontario (and possibly California, I don't know). Although a critical difference is that connectivity has a much more stable cost structure, as compared with the price of uranium constantly fluctuating.
However, this creates a monopoly at a different level and would introduce bloat and waste at the network level. Need I point to NetworkSolution's handling of domains? And end up ensuring EVERYONE's internet costs going up and you wouldn't be able to switch to someone else to get away from it.
Yes, it would be so much simpler if there was only one source for news. Only one link would be needed in that article.
they own their own fiber.
BUT, this is partially fair only when ANY other company can t dig and put its own cable to your home. Is it possible?
I mean, is there any non-economical restrictions on how to do that?
The answer is very simple: our government is for sale.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
The supreme power is to decide who gets to run the show.
I see alot of people here debating the monopolistic impacts of a single company running fiber to a house. Just because Verizon runs fiber to your house doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the data services comming into your house.
Go outside and count the number of cables comming into your home. The average home has three types:
Non-twisted copper pair (voice grade).
Coaxial cable (rg-59 or rg-6).
3 phase 220 power lines.
Data can be transmitted on all three types without fiber. The coaxial cable option will definitely give fiber a run for its money. The new DOCSIS 2.0 spec is 30 Mbps symetric!
I'm already getting 10Mbps/1Mbps across my cable connection without fiber to my home. By the time the telcos get their act together cable will have scaled to double or triple its current speeds. Granted, it's not as "cool" as saying you've got fiber, but i'll tell you i prefer surfing the web over my cable connection versus the fiber T1 at work.
There is always competition to supply where there is sufficent demand.
-ted
Read the headline. I'll wait... NOW do you know hat it ia about?
ac
It seems to me he isn't following his "promise" of promote democracy.
I would understand if he called the US Government a republic. But why do so many public figures, elected or appointed, praise the ideals of a democracy but insist on following the processes of a republic? If he wants to promote democracy, he should listen to the petitions and keep the restrictions on entertainment conglomerates.
my blog
Garbage channels have indeed increased. The cable companies replies are that the sport channels are the ones upping the prices like ESPN. I agree with this. An alacarte system would be kick ASS but will never happen because not everyone can agree on what channels they want and the cable companies have deals with the infomercial junk channels like QVC and Homeshopping network.
Need I list more?
Great to hear a media "mogul" weigh in against the further consolidation of media in America. I had some dealings with Ted during my college radio days and he's a straight shooter. Back in those days he was battling to make a mark with his "Superstation" via cable distribution. Now, people like Murdoch just buy more stations if they want to reach new markets.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Sell bonds, build, hope you make money on it and then pay for it over a few decades plus interest.
<Imagined Corporate Rant>
*Hope* you make money? Over a few decades?? Listen pal, we've got to show a profit, and we've got to show it this quarter. Decades? I plan to be sipping umbrella drinks on a beach somewhere in a decade, not wondering if we'll finally get a return on our investment. Wake up and smell the business plan, friend. Make money now! Make money fast! Screw everything else.
</Imagined Corporate Rant>
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Since last night (May 29, 2003), the FCC web page set up for receiving public comment on Broadcast Ownership: http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket= 1006400938%7C02-277%7CBroadcast+Ownership&Send=Con tinue
or
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=10 06400938%7C02-277%7CBroadcast+Ownership&Send=Conti nue
Has returned:
"There has been an error" When attempting to post a comment.
Public outrage on this issue seems to have brought the FCC servers to their knees.
- I can't read
- You can't trust any "NEWS" from AOL
- Clearchannel
Please try again, Ms. Rand!When I was in college radio at MIT, we were so paranoid about the FCC. Did we run enough public service announcements (PSA's), were we serving the community, did anyone play anything offensive on the air, etc. Your station license was up for renewal every year, and you spent weeks before the renewal running announcements about public comments and other BS just in case someone wanted to try and grab the frequency from you. Now (from what I understand), renewals are every five years, and I can't remember the last time I heard a TV or radio station mention that their license was up for renewal. So much for public ownership of the airwaves. Support your local stations and pirate radio.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
you need to stop giving them yOUR monIE, 'else, pretty soon, you're not going to like it, or the letters US, either.
va lairIE/robbIE.fud et ALe should consider their roll carefully. they were given many gifts. they are responding unkindly.
The ILEC's don't have the money to do advanced broadband. They already borrowed it for ISDN and they can't repay it. That's what one panel of telecom financial experts told an IEEE-USA workshop on advanced broadband last June.
d .h tml
d 03 report.pdf
Look at
http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POSITIONS/broadban
for the IEEE-USA position statement on advanced broadband that resulted from the workshop and at
http://www.ieeeusa.org/committees/CCIP/Broadban
for the workshop report.
In summary, the best way to go is to have the bandwidth owned/controlled by the user or by a common carrier and let content and service providers compete to provide their products.
The potential bandwidth of advanced broadband (using gigabit ethernet over fiber and compatible wireless) is so great that it drives the marginal cost (the cost for incremental additional use) to nearly zero. Basic economics says the price is driven to the marginal cost unless there is a monopoly. The ILEC's can't make money by providing advanced broadband if there is competition. But the first one in, unless the market is set up properly, could turn out to be an unregulated monopoly.
And yet you understood my post well enough to respond to it, point for point?
Since you don't know how to read, here's some tips.
1) Learn to read (yeah, you read correctly). There are people who will teach you for free.
2) There are hundreds of thousands of news sites on the Net. AOL is but one.
3) AM radio is your friend. Shortwave radio is an even better friend. This may come as a shock to you, but there are radio stations located outside the USA (gasp!). Here's another amazing fact. You can listen to a lot of these online!
...big brother actually getting to the point of owning and maintaining all the telco and net pipe? Seems like it's bad enough now with them at least having to jump through one or two small hoops in order to monitor. If they OWNED it all? Use your highway and trucks and cars analogy. We'd have the great wall of the US within a month, and you'd need a license to connect to the net, approved hardware with inspections, very limited traffic and a lot of restrictions on what you can and cannot do, what ports, etc, you can use, massive censorship (most likely, toss P2P away almost immediately), and the cost would be higher than it is now, because government needs at least a 50% (something like that, a WAG) higher work force to accomplish similar tasks as private contractors working for profit. You might even need a commercial net-driving (server) license if you were conducting business on the net. yada yada yada.
I'd have to pass, I prefer just eliminating the local monopolies, I can live with a few more cables on the poles, or line of sight laser relays or microwave relays, or other wireless whatevers. whatever might work and someone feels like going into business with. Investment money is sorta stagnant now too, I think there might be some of it out there before it evaporates as the US buck devalues, get it tied into hardware contracts maybe while it's worth something. At LEAST providing connectivity for a price and maybe on demand content and perhaps VOIP is a legit business idea and model. If current local monopoly A is such and such for such and such, and for only ten bucks (whatever) more I can get twice as much, I'll pop the extra ten clams. In this economy, "mo money" is de king. And HUGE areas of the nation and millions of people still do NOT have any choice of broadband, and millions can't get it at all, except for that on again off again weirdo satellite stuff.
While Powell said he values public input on the rules, it ultimately will be of little help in crafting ownership laws that stand up in court. "You don't govern just by polls and surveys," he said. "We have to exercise difficult judgments and abide by the law. If all of our rulemaking was just a case of put them out and take a referendum, things would be a lot easier." - From the Washington Post Article... Isnt that the point of a Democratic Government? We the People, For the People, By The People? Or am I on crack, and thats not the way It it supposed to work!
You have a bizarre view of the past. During the 1940s, broadcast media in the US was much, much more consolidated than it is now.
Almost all radio stations were either NBC or CBS affiliates. (Eventually the government split NBC in two to create a new network, ABC.)
The individual broadcasting stations were owned by newspapers. And don't get the idea that newspapers were controlled local interests -- or have you never heard about Hearst and Pulitzer?
Fortunately we still have a long way to go before things are as monopolistic as they were then. And thanks to the internet, ordinary people have a voice that they never have had before.
http://DeanForAmerica.com
May 27, 2003
Howard Dean today wrote to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, urging the FCC to
avoid further deregulation of the American media. The text of the letter:
Dear Chairman Powell,
Americans cherish the freedom of the press -- and the diversity of the
press that ensures they can get access to the truth and to the information
they need. The Bush Administration may not appreciate that freedom and
diversity, but they should not tamper with it.
On June 2nd, the Federal Communications Commission should decide against
allowing a single company to own multiple television stations, radio
stations, and newspapers in a single town. The Bush Administration has
urged the FCC to remove regulations that protect every Americans' right to
a free press. This latest attempt by the Bush Administration to undermine
the American ideals enshrined in our Constitution is wrong.
This deregulation, like so many actions pushed for by the Bush
administration, would benefit a few at the expense of the rest of us.
Modifying the ban in most cities on cross-ownership of television and
radio stations and newspapers will have serious repercussions for every
American. A similar deregulation of radio, through the 1996
Telecommunications Act, has resulted in a 30% decline of
independently-owned radio stations in the United States. This decline has
reduced Americans' access to local news via radio. According to a May 27
Bloomberg story, in at least one instance local authorities were delayed
in broadcasting important emergency information to the local populace
because the "local" radio station was broadcast from out-of-state.
Accelerating the disappearance of independent local media by further
deregulating television and newspaper ownership is the wrong direction for
this country.
In my travels around the country, I have discovered that this proposed
deregulation is one of the foremost issues on peoples' minds. I am asked
about it everywhere--in small towns in New Hampshire, and in major cities
across the nation. The American people are concerned about the future of
their media, and the effect this decision will have on them. Thousands of
Americans have written the FCC to oppose this rule, and members of
Congress from both parties have voiced their protest and requested that
you testify before them on the matter. Yet the FCC appears poised to
ignore the interests of regular Americans by allowing a few massive
conglomerates to gobble up our local news sources.
This proposed deregulation threatens the ideals of America--the ideals of
openness, free speech, free expression and free discussion, which are the
backbone of our Constitution and our democracy.
Therefore, I urge you to take the following actions:
1) Delay the June 2nd vote by the FCC.
2) Testify before Congress so that the Representatives of the
American people can have the opportunity to question the representatives
of the Bush Administration.
3) Allow for, and consider, additional public input. The FCC must
provide sufficient opportunity for public input on a decision that effects
every American.
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Lets say you wanted to offer ultra-high bandwidth dense-wave-multiplexed multi-gigabit fiber to everyone's house (for argument's sake you're going to sell state-of-the-art connectivity, and the equipment cost isn't a big deal). Say you even got a source for some ATM equipment (like a DSL modem) at commodity prices to put in peoples' homes. What does it cost install a data center for a CO, and what does it cost to run the fiber to peoples' houses, and what does it cost to maintain all of that equipment?
Seriously, if there is any demand out there for the service in *your* neighborhood, do some homework and figure out what you would have to charge to get your money back in 2, 5, 10, and even 20 years. Then you can shop the idea around and start your own Co-Op. You can include IP telephony service by getting an IP phone PBX that does something telco-ish like a T3 on the PSTN side.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
On a national level, yes, things were worse than now. On a local level, there were THOUSANDS of local radio station owners. What you are talking about is 3 or 4 companies that own half the radio shows in america, in addition to putting ONLY THEIR OWNED SHOWS on those stations. THAT IS NEW. That did not exist in the old days, while they may have used content that only 4 or 5 companies produced, the stations themselves were owned by thousands of different owners. For you to say that the newspapers owned the radio stations en masse is incorrect. They owned some of them, yes. That does not invalidate my point, which is most of the license holders ( provided they where in the game before 1941 ) got their licenses FOR FREE. And you cant do that now. You cant even get a LPFM license anymore.
Good luck getting any real pro-tech stuff passed with Team Bush running the show. These people are the apotheosis of cronyism. In spite of this getting a little media attention, I think the whole thing will go down to the liking of the big corporations (Fox, ClearChannel, Disney, Verizon, etc). The haggling will be over who in the corporate club gets the choice concessions, not over whether "the public" has any rights to be considered.
If you ask me, government should have a stake in infrastructure to keep costs down and competition open. This consistantly proves to be the best model for entrepreneurial economic success by the most parties. Look at how the national interstate highway system (which costs billions a year to maintain) is such a success, vs the railroad system. I expect nations with nationally supported (and open) tellecommunications infrastructure will weild a significant economic advantage over those which rely on profit-based monopolies/oligargies to move their bits around.
I would advise slashdotters to get involved in the upcoming political process (the 2004 presidential election) if they care about the future of technology vis-a-vis regulation. To my mind, the only thing that can stop the person-centric information revolution and kill the end-to-end net is crony regulation that will force people to use non-open software on non-open networks to do the important things (e.g. transactions, contracts, digital media, etc).
Currently I like Howard Dean, who hopefully will be maneuvered into becoming The Internet Candidate. It's an exciting time. Participate!
Howard Dean for president
The AT&T breakup was wrong. It was done the wrong way. A breakup was needed. But it wasn't obvious at the time the way the breakup needed to happen. The way it should have been done, which is more clear now, is to totally separate the infrastructure from everything else. And it is still possible to do this now with the coming fiber infrastructure.
What we need is an infrastructure company that does nothing else but infrastructure. That company would own the infrastructure and the access point facility. But they would not be allowed to be in any level of business beyond that in exchange for having the infrastructure monopoly. They would not provide dialtone. They would not provide IP routing. They would also not provide point to point circuits except to common carrier businesses.
Every common carrier would pay the same price to have access to the infrastructure. There would be one price for full dark fiber. There would be another price for partial bandwidth on a multiplexed fiber. Homes should have a minimum of 7 fibers, and businesses of course would have more as needed. But 7 is enough for a massive amount of service in today's terms. One fiber can run hundreds of TV channels and gigabits of digital bandwidth.
The advantage of this split, is it separates the infrastructure monopoly from fair competitive information and communications services, allows choice, and even allows multiple concurrent services. The big money is in the information and communications services, so this will help boost the economy, too. The infrastructure company would be allowed to charge actual costs plus a reasonable profit for a stable long term return on investment.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It's nice to see the washington post for regulation. They've got quite a media empire: 3+ newspapers, newsweek magazine, 6 over-the-air tv stations, a large cable network, Kaplan, and several internet ventures, including part of BrassRing.com
It's a nice media empire that fits well under the old FCC rules. There is little overlap in the markets served. The tv sations are all in different cities, and the newspapers serve different locations and formats.
I wish them success in overturning the new fcc rules bought by bush's corporate supporters.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
This is obviously broken english.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Wouldn't it just be Telephone service? Every time I see telephony, I think "phony".
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Sorry I don't have any mod points. An excellent post!
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
That's all well and good until Bell convinces your state government to forbid cooperative or city-funded high-speed networks.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It seems like everyday there's a new law which some corporate weasels' influence has tainted. These proposed changes are a blatent slap in the face to the consumer, and I'm sure some executives are laughing their asses off. I'm looking forward to my daily brainwashing from the clearchannel information minister.
"Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to?"
Apparently not you, as it should be "...to whom will you speak it?"
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
This doesn't answer the main questions posed by the proposed deregulation but here goes.
If we are to have regulation why not prohibit the company that builds fiber to the home (FTTH) from being an ISP. It would be in the fiber business, not the Internet business. Any and all comers could use the fiber for a fee. AOL, MSN, Earthlink, whomever. All would be served equally by a company that had no axe to grind. No ILECs screwing CLECs and screaming about having to share their infrastructure with competitors.
Insert witty sig here.
With AT&T anyway, the gov't said "Will you bring telephone service to _EVERYONE?_ and ATT says "Sure. But only if we can operate as a monopoly." The government, then faced with either getting tight-assed Americans to pony up more taxes to benefit the little guy or create a government-regulated monopoly, decided to go where the blame was least. They created Ma Bell. Now the same thing is going on; Telcos whine and say "we won't built out DSL unless we can operate as a monopoly, after all why should WE have to pay to build all that and not get every penny we can squeeze out of it?"
Well, folks, SSDD.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
IMNSHO, this will be the great privatizing of the profits and socialization of cost, and the nationalization of outfits like Clear Channel. I'm glad I'm starting a new newspaper right now, and I wonder if we'll ever get megaconglomerates trying to take us over. (I doubt it.)
What this will likely mean in the short-term is that medium-sized media companies such as Lee Enterprises will get bought up, essentially meaning that newspapers will generally recite only one line, which (through an amazing coincidence) will be the same line you hear on TV and/or the radio. That's just my opinion as a slightly informed media activist; I could be wrong.
It will be interesting to see if there's an upsurge in interest in Indymedia outlets if the FCC votes to allow this. And my feeling is that they will, by a party line, with son-of-Sec. of State General Powell (Michael) giving the key vote allowing it to happen.
That democracy you thought we had actually has been comatose for some time now. This will shoot it in its paralyzed leg.
-- haaz.
Here's the thing.
I wouldn't mind (in the least) de-regulation, if it was *easier* for people to get broadcast licences.
I mean, think about it. They have to be licenced by the FCC to broadcast, right?
I wouldn't mind a person having a monopoly on all the broadcasts in an area, if anyone could start one.
So it's not really de-regulation that we fear, but consolidation.
The FTTH system used in Japan actually encompasses ISDN, ADSL and FTTH services. It is a very balance system for the LBOC, ISP's big and small, and Consumers. You contract for your FTTH, ADSL or ISDN service with your LBOC and the apporpiate fee is added to your phone bill $9-$40 depending on which service. Then you contract any ISP that is connected to this network $9-$30 depending on your ISP. For an ISP to connect to this nationwide LBOC network is primarily just the cost of the appropriate size circuit between the closest LBOC switching point and the ISP. an Example of this would be my service 100Mbps FTTH LBOC fee- $40, ISP fee- $15 (dynamic IP). LBOC is happy making their cut, ISP is happy because they make their fee without having to invest in traditional expensive items like RAS's, DSLAMS and maintenance. All that equipment is handled by the LBOC. And the consumer has extremely high bandwith connection. If the customer is unhappy with their service due to speeds, lack of or quality of other services ie email etc., they just change providers from the several thousand connected to the LBOC. Really this is not that different than the old 56k model where the LBOC handled the phone line the ISP connected to the phone network via PRI circuit etc. except the ISP can scratch the cost of RAS's.
N/T
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/31/fcc/i ndex.html
... that the major media will be their friends."
Former FCC chairman: Deregulation is a right-wing power grab
Reed Hundt says Monday's historic vote is "the culmination of the attack by the right on the media."
By Eric Boehlert
May 31, 2003 | The Federal Communications Commission will meet in Washington on Monday for a historic vote on the future of media ownership in the United States. By all accounts, the Republican-dominated commission will ease long-standing rules so that more and more of the nations newspapers and broadcast stations can be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Underlying that agenda, Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt sees something more primal unfolding: an extraordinary conservative power grab that could shape the political landscape for generations.
For all the philosophical conflict over diversity in the media and the efficiency of the free market, Hunt told Salon this week, the vote is really about an alliance of interests between the political right and the corporate media. "Conservatives," he said, "hope
In today's political and media environment, there's plenty of evidence that those hopes will come true. ABC News recently appointed conservative commentator John Stossel to co-host its primetime magazine "20/20." "These are conservative times...," an ABC source told TV Guide. "The network wants somebody to match the times."
The FCC's two Democrats have strongly opposed the deregulation measure that's been pushed by current FCC chairman Michael Powell, a close ally of the Bush White House, and public response to the proposal has been heavily opposed. But Hundt's radical critique is all the more striking because he is an establishment lawyer thoroughly versed in the diplomatic niceties of high government office. He attended prep school with Al Gore and law school with Bill Clinton and served as FCC chairman under Clinton from 1993 to 1997. He is now a senior advisor at McKinsey and Co., the international consulting firm.
The FCC has long had rules regulating media ownership, based on the assumption that the number of broadcast frequencies is limited. The regulations were designed to ensure that radio and television stations remained diverse, independent voices and could withstand predatory conglomerates. But on Monday the FCC is expected to dump those rules.
A company like the News Corp., owned by conservative world-media mogul Rupert Murdoch, will be able to hold newspapers, television stations and radio stations in the same market. Conglomerates such as the News Corp. (Fox TV, Fox News, Fox Sports, 20th Century Fox Studio, the New York Post, HarperCollins Publishers) and Viacom (CBS, MTV, Paramount Studios and the Infinity radio network), would be allowed to snatch up more and more local TV affiliate stations nationwide. And, critics say, small and medium-size broadcast companies and newspaper publishers will likely be swallowed up by bigger competitors.
In the telephone interview Wednesday, Hundt warned that the massive media deregulation will exacerbate the dangerously close relationship that's emerged between sprawling U.S. media companies and the government. "If Dwight Eisenhower were alive today," he said, "he'd be warning us about the dangers of the military-industry-media complex."
During Hundt's term as FCC chairman, the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. As originally drafted by Republicans in Congress, the legislation would have virtually stripped away all media-ownership limits. In the end, Clinton signed into law a compromise version that allowed only the radio industry to be deregulated.
At the time, Hundt was among the few to warn of the consequences. The new laws would allow "a few companies to buy all the radio licenses in the country," he said then. "I don't believe that's good for this industry or for this country."
His words proved prophetic. Since
Mr. President, Senator Feinstein & Congresswoman Pelosi,
/.
h tml1 61725 9&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=149&tid= 99
I love my country, but to date my civic participation has been limited to a yearly visit to the polls, until now. The democracy lovin', U.S citizen in me, strongly urges you to delay the expected June 2nd decision on the FCC proposal to lift the ban on cross-ownership of television stations and newspapers. Entreats you to remove the decision making process from the five hands of the commission and deliver it into the arms of the public for general debate.
An issue that affects so many, cannot be made by so few. Not in the spirit of democracy at any rate.
I'm finally doing my part in the democratic process. Speaking my opinion on how we ought to govern ourselves. Not on how to be governed, mind you. Please hold up your end of the representative process. Hear my voice.
Hear our voices. Support "localism, competition and diversity of views".
Robert Brian Skinner
San Francisco, CA
cc: GWB, DF, NP, NYT, IHT,
References:
http://www.iht.com/articles/97184.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/30/
You know, there's no diversity of opinion on talk radio. I have the hardest time distinguishing between Rush Limbaugh and Diane Reams. And that Michael Savage sounds sooo much like Fresh Aire.
I'm not defending Clear Channel. Their music stations have really short play lists. And their play lists play follow-the-leader. I listen to classic rock. Now, how many tunes have the Doobie Brothers played in the last 25 years. Multiply that by the number of other bands over the decades and you have a universe of zillions of tunes. So, how come I hear the same lame tune today that i hated yesterday.
Your assertion seems to be that lowest-common-denominator mail delivery paid for by others is something you want. Is that true? Personally, I send things via private carriers, either local bike messangers or Fedex. I've had a lot of problems with USPS mail, including a case of theft by a USPS employee. This is the sort of thing government monopolies encourage. Theft by an employee of Fedex results in a termination of that employee, and some compensation to me. Theft by an employee of a government run monopoly results in nothing for me, an expensive "investigation", and promoting the thief to a point where he can't steal anymore.
Plus, the USPS has done a great job on combating fraud.
Sorry, did you want a postal service or a law enforcement agency? There is a difference.
Environmental Protection. The phrase "The fox guarding the Henhouse" applies to any private company. And I doubt that people who want less government would want the Sierra Club providing this function.
Hm. You're halfway there. Have you looked at the behavior of, say, the EPA? You'll find the board is loaded with former executives of companies that pollute a lot. Much like how the FAA is loaded with people from airlines. The very existence of an agency that writes rules for a given function ensures that the agency in question is dominated by people who represent the regulated activity. "The fox guarding the Henhouse", indeed.
Fire and Emergency Services. I can see "Sorry, your insurance doesn't cover this type of emergency - what is your credit card number". Yes, I know some ambulances are run by private companies.
This still happens. For a long time, I lived in a very rural town in the SW US. When someone's house was on fire, the local fire department first looked up whether or not they'd made "donations" recently. If they hadn't, it took longer to find them. Same with the local hospital. If you think a monopoly run by government fixes this, you're dreaming. You don't even have to go to small towns for this - look at how government officials get preferential treatment for home monitoring, etc. in any city.
Tax Collection. Sorry, can't trust non-government entities.
And you trust the IRS?
I'm not being flip here. They are the collection agency of the government. They have a monopoly on force for collecting whatever is determined appropriate by an arcane process from you. They are judged by how well they do that.
Military Defense. Sorry, I don't like the idea of private armies. Sounds too feudal to me.
Perhaps. Current uses of military power would appear to be entirely feudal, but ignore that. The US used to imagine armies to be raised by grave threats, and dispanded thereafter. After WWII, this changed. What exactly was the reason for this? Think about it some.
I forget what 8 was for.
It might get so bad, that you might not even be able to get broadcasts in portable formats. And top-rated news orginizations would have to charge for transcripts. I wonder what the regulators think of that sad state of affairs.
I hope Powell drops the rule change and goes with a substitute resolution in favor of giving David Stockman unlimited airtime in the wake of the dismissal of Mitch Daniels and Paul O'Niell. You know he and Condi are just on the brink at this point. And can you believe the torture that the Supreme Court just forced Thomas to justify? The revolution will be televised, but more fun to watch on the internet.