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

Why is this a federal issue?

[compumike]

The problem is that individual municipalities have been selling cable monopolies for decades... and in the old days, it used to be the case that no one cable company would get all of a particular large city, to ensure at least some semblance of competition. These days, they've all merged into one (in Philadelphia, at least).

What I think might be interesting is to decouple the wire from the service provider. Think about electricity deregulation: the transmission is seperate from the generation, and while everyone has to pay for the transmission (since we don't want overly redundant infrastructure), individuals can choose their generation source. The disadvantage here, as seen in the electrical case, is that there are more places to nickel-and-dime consumers. However, done with cable systems, we might actually have enough diversity of service offerings that it makes sense.

--
Educational microcontroller lab kits for the digital generation.

Re:Why is this a federal issue?

[Jorgandar]

Good point. I think this fundamentally is another text-book case of a natural monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

The wire is a monopoly, that is, as it should be. The content provider is an example of almost perfect competition (just like the internet). But what is needed is the government to step in to provide such regulation to decouple the wire from the content.

Re:Why is this a federal issue?

[ph4s3]

compumike (454538) on Tuesday November 13, @12:37AM, said
What I think might be interesting is to decouple the wire from the service provider. Think about electricity deregulation: the transmission is seperate from the generation, and while everyone has to pay for the transmission (since we don't want overly redundant infrastructure), individuals can choose their generation source. The disadvantage here, as seen in the electrical case, is that there are more places to nickel-and-dime consumers. However, done with cable systems, we might actually have enough diversity of service offerings that it makes sense.

Best idea ever. The same should be done on the telco side too, and very nearly has with CLECs and unbundled network element requirements. The physical layer is a natural monopoly that should have a regulated rate of return; the services layer is not and should be open to all comers. I think this would be the only way to push this country ahead of the rest of the world regarding connectivity - decouple cable and telco from their physical layer so you've got two distinct platforms to reach the home, three if you include wireless.

I think it's actually redundant to have the two infrastructures and more could be done with a single infrastructure, but I think the competition is good and each will push the other forward in technology. It's probably wasteful to maintain two networks, but I can't see this country's politicians actually choosing who would operate the single infrastructure or ever regulating it well enough so as to force innovation in that single network -- note how much telco innovation came post-breakup of Ma Bell.

Freedom.

[rice_burners_suck]

What we need is less government regulation and more freedom. Businesses should duke it out, and consumers should be mindful of what is happening and vote with their dollars when making purchasing decisions for products and services. I know that in many areas, Cable TV is monopolized, but nowadays with DirecTV and whatever satellite services, not to mention the Internet, also not to mention the option to avoid wasting time in front of the television set, it's not so important that the government needs to waste resources regulating this stuff. Remember: Whenever the government does something, it will be more expensive, less efficient, and less effective than if the same thing were done by private citizens or business.

Re:Freedom.

[rainman_104]

What we need is less government regulation and more freedom. I actually like the 30% cap the FCC wants to put in place. Sometimes consolidation hurts consumers. If all cable providers consolidate to a monopoly, don't you think it'd move to do a bunch of crap like buy off Congress to preserve their monopoly, or even worse buy up any small business that tries to move into the market to compete?

Monopolies aren't always good for consumers and the FCC makes a move to prevent a monopoly, and IMO that's not the worse thing the FCC has done in recent years.

Re:Freedom.

[mrxak]

We need less regulation, absolutely. The way it is currently you have to lobby every little municipality to get the right to lay your cables, and of course the other companies can lobby against you if they are already established. These so-called natural monopolies are a joke. They prevent all competition and your cable bill is all the higher. Same happens with internet. You have one or two big players (cable and DSL), and that's it. Verizon and other companies are spreading their fiber optics, but every little town needs to be lobbied to bring in their service, and of course your Comcast and your Time Warner or whatever put as much pressure as possible to keep out the competition. Less regulation will be better for everyone.

Sure, you won't have sleepy little towns in the middle of nowhere getting 500 channels (half of which are public access or community channels, of course), but oh wait, they already do. Whatever benefits regulation promised were one-time things and those benefits are now irrelevant. Let more players into the market.

So what's the catch?

[PoderOmega]

Maybe I am just being cynical, but why is the FCC so interested in this? I've only heard the good stuff about this (cheaper cable, more competition), but there's got to be some downside to this. All I can tell is that the FCC just wants more power - but to do what? I have Comcast, and despite the general hate for them on net I've been fairly satisfied with the service, but the price keeps edging up every year.

I'm kind of locked in to Comcast because my condo fees pay for group rate basic cable for the building (I know the FCC passed something about apartment buildings lately and I have not looked into it). I can get an ugly dish on my balcony, but I am basically throwing away money in condo fees if I am not using Comcast. I'm sure if having an option to go to another cable company or dish would be that great if it means the building loses the volume discount.

Teddy Roosevelt would be proud

[TwoHundredOk]

I would be the first one to applaud the break-up of the cable-company monopolies. They seem to make the companies, at least Comcast which I have had experience with, cocky to the point of not caring about customer service, pricing, or competition in general. However, 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?

Re:tag: fuckthefcc?

[electroniceric]

I'm certainly not opposed regulating monopolistic industries, but the point that the TechDirt article makes is well taken: if there is in fact competition emerging in the tv market, regulation of cablecos now could give a big competitive edge to telcos, and lead to a far more monopolistic situation in cable and broadband when telcos use their favored position to lock up the broadband market.

Regulation shouldn't be undertaken to punish a company or an industry, particularly not at the behest of a competitor. It should be undertaken to address some market failure that harms consumers and the public. Figuring out what will result in the market that best serves the public and is most competitive is a bit tricky in these kinds of situations, because it requires evaluating trends for the likelihood they'll introduce competition, so there's always some guesswork about things will actually unfold. I think in this situation you have to weigh the likelihood of that competition strengthening against the impact of handing the telcos a competitive advantage.

All that said, to my mind the best answer is to require open access to all the networks, cable, copper, fiber and otherwise. Doubly so because the government footed the bill for a lot of the work to build these networks.

When the price gets down to zero, let me know

[SlappyBastard]

Otherwise, I'm stickin' with my bitchin' antenna -- OTA HD ROCKS!