FCC Moves To Regulate Cable TV Competition

explosivejared writes "The Federal Communications Commission is likely to impose a new regulation on the largely unregulated cable television industry, the first of what may be more to come. Under a proposed rule circulating at the FCC, cable companies such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable would have to slash the price they charge smaller television programmers to lease access on spare cable channels, a move the FCC says would open up cable viewers to a wider diversity of shows. In addition, the FCC is contemplating a national ownership cap that would prevent one company from having more than 30 percent of all cable subscribers." TechDirt has a jaundiced view of FCC chairman Martin's animus against the cablecos.

Comments

A Wider Diversity Of Shows?

[rsmith-mac]

From TFS:

Under a proposed rule circulating at the FCC, cable companies such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable would have to slash the price they charge smaller television programmers to lease access on spare cable channels, a move the FCC says would open up cable viewers to a wider diversity of shows

Am I the only one that doesn't see a problem with the current "diversity"? We have 300+ channels of everything imaginable, including plenty of channels that have no right existing (*cough* G4 *cough*). Is anyone trying to create a channel today, and finding their limiting factor is the cost to get space on the cable networks, as opposed to the costs of making decent programming?

I suppose this change will make The Reality TV Rerun Channel cheaper to provide, but I've never seen any evidence that the limiting factor is anything other than convincing people to watch your channel over 299 others they already get.

Re:So what's the catch?

[Anonymous Coward]

> All I can tell is that the FCC just wants more power - but to do what?

For the people who sit on its committees to be able to extract more money from the cable industry's lobbyists.

FCC: "We're going to give the consumer what they want"
Cable lobbyists: "Nooooooooo! DO NOT WANT!"
FCC: "Like we said. Nice monopoly. Shame if something happened to it."
Cable lobbyists: "Name your price."
FCC: "$100 billion dollars."
Cable lobbyists: "Too much. We can buy enough Congressmen to replace all of you for less than half that much."
FCC: "True. So now that the polite preliminaries are over, let's negotiate a fair price."
Cable lobbyists: "Deal."

Re:Teddy Roosevelt would be proud

[Scaba]

I am having difficulty seeing how the FCC can advocate for the end (or at least modifications) to this monopoly, while allowing heating, water, and electric utility companies to maintain theirs. Is there a differentiation that I am missing?

The primary differentiation is that none of those utilities are communication services, and fall out of the purview of the FCC. Besides, around here (Philadelphia), you can buy electricity and "heat" (in the form of oil, electricity or whatever your heating system converts to heat) from whomever you want. You also have the option of changing the heating system you use if you don't like the providers of that form of energy. Water is supplied by the municipality, which is probably an advantage. I'd hate to have to pay premium for "advanced water services," like basic filtering and sterilization.

tag: fuckthefcc?

[GroeFaZ]

Excuse me for having missed the memo, but why is anti-monopolistic regulation in general or in this particular case a bad thing?

Re:Why is this a federal issue?

[jonwil]

The data transmission lines would be funded the same way as the electricity grid.

Lather rinse repeat. ( obl)

[killmofasta]

1. Start cable company
2. Get regulated.
3. Raise prices.
4. Profit.
5. Get unregulated
6. More Profit.
7. GO to 2.

The endless money cycle.
I am looking forward to the price increase.
( So far, it has NEVER failed )

Treat Them All the Same

[Doc Ruby]

If the FCC, or the government in general, were serious about regulating these cablecos in the public interest, they'd just revise all the laws to treat cable "TV", "phone" and "data" networks all the same. What makes them different is no longer their content, as each of those three kinds of companies deliver the "triple play" of video/voice/data, and therefore the same customers. There might be distinctions among networks that cross state lines, or that have either government contracts specifying special liabilities (eg 911 service operators) or market status (eg monopoly or some subsidy for growth or competition), or perhaps even provided by a government.

But they're all networks. They all have directly comparable service levels, competition requirements, public interest requirements, consumer protections. The distinctions by their content type, even if their media mix is somewhat different, is largely irrelevant. They should all be regulated to ensure they offer the same levels of service in their products, especially as they market those products to the same consumers as being "the same" as their competitors, like TV from the "phone company" or phone from "the cable company" or all of it from "an ISP". And of course the content should be regulated separately from the network access/connection - perhaps even regulated to break up vertical monopolies that currently bundle content and network together.

After the basic rules they can make whatever smaller exceptions are appropriate. Radio broadcasts, including TV and "wireless networks", that use the public airwaves, all can get their special treatment different from that distributed on private wires/fibers. Private wires/fibers that use public rights of way (like in most cities) can have their concessions to the public in exchange for their right of way access. And purely private networks can have their protection from regulation, where that's appropriate, specified. Unrestricted content, like pure broadcast (eg open websites, basic cable) can be distinguished from content requested by adults - which should be largely unrestricted, except where production of that content might violate (non-telecom) laws in force where the content is produced (eg pornography or defamation).

The sum total of all the regulations, even in the "deregulated" modern environment, is now a huge mass that raises operating costs (and therefore prices) by requiring lawyers and bureaucrats at every turn. A reformed legal basis could be much shorter, simpler, and appropriate to the modern age, where tech and marketing has leveled the playing field in a way that is not at all recognizable in current law.

Why are we still dealing with "TV Channels"?

[Riskable]

Let's talk about the real problem here: Cable TV channels are a huge waste of bandwidth. I don't care if The Perfect Channel(TM) is on my cable. I want it off. Give me NO channels and let me use that bandwidth for INTERNET ACCESS.

Right now your "Cable Internet" is using up about 10% of your coaxial cable while the other 90% is used to deliver TV channels. What a waste! If the FCC (or Congress) forced cable providers to be CABLE PROVIDERS (as in, they provide the wire and nothing else) then we could all have 100MB+ Internet access with the ability to choose from a nearly infinite array of "channels", P2P-distributed "shows", and any other content we wanted. If they truly want diversity, that is the best way to do it.

Using bandwidth for things other than TCP/IP (or similar protocols) is a waste.