Slashdot Mirror
FCC Planning Rules to Open Cable Market
quanticle writes "According to the New York Times, the FCC is planning to unveil new regulations for the cable market that will lower barriers to entry for independent programmers. The rules would be aimed at stopping the growth of existing cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner, while seeking to encourage more small companies to get into the field. Also, earlier this month, the FCC struck down the practice of having exclusive contracts between cable providers and apartment owners. All in all, this looks like a welcome infusion of competition into an otherwise stagnant market. The impact that this will have on the network neutrality debate is unclear."
I'm all for anything that creates competition and lowers prices, especially in the cable industry (all bastards), but I just have this bad feeling that this is really designed to make it harder for any of the cable companies to compete with the big telcos, which is already nigh impossible. So frustrating.
Same F.C.C., they are just responding to pressure from an even larger more powerful lobby than the cable guys. From the article: "consumer groups and phone companies have urged the commission to invoke the rule.". These unnamed 'consumer groups' do not include any that I know represent the public (after a quick check). My guess is they are typical 'consumer' groups created by lobbyists to appear as though they support the public, leading to misleading 'articles' such as this that appear to show the government being supportive of the public. When industry attempts to influence public behavior, they will often use advertisements, er um... articles such as these.
Comcast is the soup du jour round these parts but I don't know anyone who has them for anything other than internet access. I have DISH and all of my friends either have DISH or DirecTV. Comcast is more expensive, offers less channels, and has crappier customer service. Plus I'm dependent on the quality of the wiring in my apartment when using them. Not a problem where I live now, building is only a couple years old, but the townhouse I used to occupy had crap cabling from the early 60's and the high speed internet wasn't so high speed.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
More likely someone was outbribed.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
The makeup of the F.C.C. changes when there is a change of faces making the appointments. We didn't vote for these people. Those making large campaign contributions have bought some ears (maybe other parts as well?). The F.C.C. does listen to the public on some issues, and in some cases congress steps in when people are really upset. Most of the bad decisions slip through pretty quietly. I'd like to see some changes.
The "Mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" phrase from the movie Network comes to mind.
Contact the F.C.C. and your representatives! (and maybe neighbors too...)
I'd like to see some major changes.
When using the channel count as a partial basis for rates, don't count channels where the cable company sells advertising. Advertising sales undermine local radio and tv broadcasters which provide (or should provide) a much higher level of community service - things like local news programs and other public affairs programs that address community needs. We should not undermine the viability of community-oriented broadcasting.
Channels where the cable company gets a fee or kickback from carrying the signal (like shopping channels) should get a weigh of minus one (Consumer gets a rate cut for every one added).
I propose that cable companies not be able to charge (a station) to carry a local broadcast tv signal if the tv station is locally owned, and commits to not broadcast paid programs or infomercials (basically running under old rules with voluntary commitment to limit number of minutes of ads per hour), and run no paid political ads (only free information as public affairs programming). At the same time, requirements for lower power tv stations should be increased too - require public inspection files (and responsiveness to the LOCAL community) and the addition of Emergency Alert System hardware.
Cable companies should not be able to add on a "cable use fee" or similar to those wanting to use them as an ISP but not for television. Where I am they were (last I checked) adding $10 a month. That's a huge amount when one considers that lifeline unlimited-use telephone service is only about $6.50 a month, and the phone company is providing copper all the way back to the switching office while a cable provider merely provides a tap off of a single high-level signal cable (no dedicated cable per customer).
The cable rule changes of some years back took away the power cities had to pressure local cable operators to treat people better. Loss of local control is usually a bad thing. Locals can more easily vote out people making bad or corrupt decisions at a local level. At the federal level it is far more difficult. Those in the F.C.C. don't have elected positions. And the election process isn't without problems.
There are many good and qualified people at the F.C.C., but they apparently don't have a majority voice there currently.
When looking at corruption it often helps to follow the money. In the case of politicians, much of it (and the part they might explain away as "legal") goes to campaign spending.
See this prior discussion on doing away with paid political radio/tv/cable ads.
It's a good goal to increase competition for utility-like entities like cable and telephone, but why do the attempts always involve increasing regulation.
I suggest that the greatest barrier to entry for cable competitors isn't the programming, OR the copper, but the land. Everyone who wants to lay copper or glass has to go through miles of red tape just to get the rights of way, but this is silly. Where rights of way have already been granted, it makes sense to simply open that up: Pick a number of additional parallel lines that won't be too unsightly, and auction off the extra rights of way. Obviously, they would have lease-lengths, and no minimum bid, and the existing telcos would be barred from the first round of bidding on the additional cross-sectional area.
The point is that if you want competition, you're never going to have it as long as the "competition" has to buy or lease its capacity from the entrenched company they're trying to compete with.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
While I agree, I tend to think that they would put much higher price tags on the more popular channels, effectively costing me the same amount or more for the same channels that I use now.
I dare you to live in a country larger than my state.