Slashdot Mirror
FCC Delays Vote On Cable TV Regulation
Tech.Luver recommends a story unfolding at the FCC, where Chairman Kevin Martin delayed a vote on a report that would open the door to more agency control over the cable television industry. Analysts say that Martin lacked support to pass the measure. The delayed vote was on a draft report, backed by Martin, that found that cable companies control enough of the pay-TV market to warrant more oversight under the so-called "70/70" rule — 70% of US households passed by cable and 70% of those with access to cable service subscribing to it. The cable industry disputed the figures in the report, and Martin's two fellow Republican commission members also expressed doubts.
The part where the people (by an Act of Congress), *not* private telephone companies, paid for the vast majority of the cable. "We the people" should continue to have a say in how they are best distributed amongst the "needy" (speakers).
A congressman is a constinuency's lottery ticket to see if they can strike it big and get their trivial or social crap made law. Ammending the constitution is a bitch and two-thirds so passing blatently illegal legislation that no one will ever call them on because it'll never involve anything that they can be brought to court for is matter of habit. The president could call them on it, but given that the two branches have developed some kind of fucked up complacency over the last century people are going to be basically bowned until they stop electing morally-certain but ethically void people.
They get to censor because of public mandate. It's less true now (although there are plenty of use who don't mind and wish they would do more). But back when they were founded in '34, the general public would have had a heart attack if they heard someone saying "fuck" on the radio. Same thing for TV when it came along. People liked the FCC doing this (and they still to, for the most part, or at least don't mind).
Then again, a great many more people had a sense of decency back then. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you need to.
Why do they get to regulate signals sent along copper? Two reasons. First of all (and most obviously)... it's public. It's not a private channel it is broadcast. Second, just because you receive something over Cable doesn't mean it isn't on the open airwaves for others. That's why NBC still has to follow those rules. FCC is more lax on cable for this exact reason, especially on pay channels like HBO (where they can do whatever they want with a few exceptions, like child pornography).
Why the police arrest you for saying "fuck"? I doubt they can. Unless you've been belligerent and harassing someone else doing it. In that case, you've already committed a crime. But if you just stand on a corner, yell "fuck", then get on with life as if nothing happened, they can't arrest you.
For the last part... yell at the supreme court. Vote your congressman out. Or understand that that was designed to protect political speech and most people are more worried about that and other important uses (like freedom of the press) than giving you the "right" to say "fuck" whenever you want. It's called priorities.
This message has been a public service (something else the FCC gets to do) by MBCook. Mod as you wish.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Or "almost half" depending on your point of view.
But as someone who lives in an area not served by cable, I'd like to note that there is some value in tracking the two statistics separately; "70% of all possible subscribers" and "49% of all households" are not obviously the same statistic unless you also know the cable availability rate.
Regardless of the intent of the regulation, it will inevitably be used to censor cable. I'm not saying that cable companies don't also make decisions about what they will and won't show based on factors that I may find equally irrelevant or stilly, but it's still adding a layer to the problem.
Not only that, but while <cable company> can change its mind at any time about what it will and won't show, the FCC is not only slow acting, but unlikely to ever repeal a decision or reduce restrictions because that would involve admitting that someone was wrong. And in the world of politics that's nothing short of suicide (unless you are sufficiently well funded to overcome such difficulties).
Correct. However, the FCC have demonstrated a very clear desire to censor cable and sat. broadcasts on many occasions. Concern in this regard may be untopical, but it is hardly unjustified.
Yeah, I'd say we do. Has cable service and pricing gotten better or worse since they were deregulated in 1996?
The industry has had their chance, and they've shown they'll just collude and buy up new companies, leaving things exactly the way they were competition-wise, only with less oversight to keep them from taking advantage of the situation.
Which high dollar lobbyist and party fund raiser would this benefit? And which high dollar lobbyist and party fund raiser would oppose it?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Really, this is a case of "Whoever wins, we (the consumers) lose." The cable companies don't want the FCC getting into the cable industry's business because they fear the FCC mandating all sorts of extra crap from them that could potentially benefit the consumer without giving them the chance to profit from it. On the other hand, the content industry would probably be happy with the FCC getting more involved, because they could use the FCC as a tool for pushing DRM, unskippable advertising, etc., through the cable and into the consumer's face.
The reality is, there's already at least some regulation of the cable industries at the municipal and state levels, and this is a good thing, because like most other pole-mounted services, cable is almost always regionally monopolized. My biggest fear is that the involvement of the FCC in cable industry regulation would end up being tantamount to deregulation, causing state and local regulations (such as municipal franchise licensing) to go directly out the window and raising prices across the board for consumers with no corresponding improvements in service.
I see your point but as soon as the FCC gets a toe hold into cable in any form, expect your favorite cable shows to suddenly turn Disney on your ass.
Except that they're not exactly without regulation.
How many municipalities decided that cable networks competing for the same neighborhood would be "wasteful" and only allow one or two companies to provide service?
Competition = good. Except that it's illegal in some places. I wonder why prices are high.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Congress can't make it illegal for you to say "shit" or "fuck" or show a tit on TV, but they don't have to allow you to use the public airwaves to do it.
Thank you, Thomas Paine. I suppose it follows that they can't make it illegal for you to stage a protest, but they don't have to allow you to use public property to do it. Right? Wrong.
I can't believe this authoritarian bullshit I'm replying to is standing at +5 Informative. Exercising your freedom of speech means something only if it's in public. What the hell is the point of protecting private speech?
Doesn't really matter how much you try to cook the numbers, the real problem is the 70/70 law.
I would love to see some historical data on cable subscriber numbers over the years. As far as I can tell, the cable companies know that every time they raise rates they're going to lose a percentage of their subscriber base, so the last 20 years have been a careful balance of keeping the rates right at the pain threshold for consumers so that ~60% will grudgingly subscribe but the 70% requirement for regulation will never be reached. Once people are numb to the pain of the higher prices and subscriber percentages recover, they raise the rates again. rinse and repeat year after year...
I would note that any protest you staged that is considered to do harm to the public interest can be stopped. This is why we forbid hate speech; it generates a toxic environment. Similarly, with airwaves, the reasoning is that because there is a limited number, and everyone has access to them and regularly utilizes it, we should be aware of how what we put there affects them. In the interest of children, for instance, we forbid certain categories of behavior being portrayed during certain periods of the day.
The problem with this approach is that someone has to decide what constitutes hate speech. Right now, certain classes (race, religion) are protected while others (sexual orientation) are not. Since the ability to criticize the government is vital to democracy, we can't trust the government with the power to make any such distinctions. The harm to democracy that arises from outlawing ANY speech far outweighs whatever harm that speech could cause by being heard.
You can argue all you want about the categories, but it's pretty accepted that environments that affect everyone should have some publicly motivated controls on them. The regulator of those controls, ultimately, is the government. And thank goodness! Because we have no inherent protection from corporations or even just other individuals otherwise.
The only difference between the government and corporations is that government gets to use force. So what you're saying is that the only part of society that's allowed to take away your freedom or inflict bodily harm on you should also be allowed to decide what you can say and hear? Wouldn't you rather have the freedom to change channels and watch what you want?
We've seen the government's approach to regulating "indecent" speech: it's secretive, capricious, and retaliatory. Indecency is used as a pretext to target those whose speech the government doesn't agree with -- such as Howard Stern, whose employer the FCC fined half a million dollars for content that was less explicit than Oprah's. There are no written rules for what you can and can't say. The closest thing to a standard that exists is a George Carlin routine.
You really think this is better than allowing consenting adults to make decisions for themselves? This is the world you want to live in?
So you say. But the thing about democracy is that it does not have to do with what one person holds to be true, or even what the objective truth is, but rather what the society as a whole holds to be true. If the society holds that hate speech is a form of speech that should not be tolerated, because its harm outweighs the harm done by a degree of censorship - then that is the case. That is, in fact, the meaning of democracy, that these values are decided not by a single authoritative voice, but by a consensus.
That's one reason the Bill of Rights exists, and why it's so difficult to change the Constitution. The framers recognized that free speech is so fundamental to the democratic process that even that process should not be able to abridge it -- at least, not without a great deal of debate. But unfortunately, we've had a series of bad Supreme Court decisions that have limited freedom of speech in the name of safety, decency, and other false idols.
Before you argue, though, that we don't have a true consensus; that is a problem with the process and not the result. If your actual issue is that we do a poor job of achieving a true consensus, then wage that battle instead.
My argument is with the notion that we can ever be better off by restricting speech than by allowing it. You can always point to a type or example of speech and say "The world would be a better place if that guy hadn't said that." But you can never claim that it would be better had he not been allowed to say it. The marketplace of ideas is not only a good idea -- it's perhaps the most important concept human civilization has ever developed.
You're implying here that physical force is some sort of trump card. You go on to suggest that corporations cannot inflict bodily harm.
Not directly, intentionally, and legally, they can't. And it's not just a trump card -- it's the defining characteristic of government. It explains why our Constitution was written so as not to give rights to the people, but so as to define those rights which the government does not have. Any expansion of those powers is a step toward tyranny.
The truth of the matter is that people's freedom is constrained a great many ways, and that corporations have access to a large number of those ways, just as the government does. Nevermind pollutants, corporations decide who has the right to health care in this country and who does not.
I'd argue that the free market decides, which means we collectively decide -- very democratic, you'll notice -- but the system does have its flaws. Most of those flaws come from excessive government interference in the market. I could get cheaper health care, for example, if my doctor didn't need the government's authorization to practice medicine, because there would be more doctors to choose among, and thus more competition. As long as I trust his credentials, and I (or my insurance provider) am willing to pay what he asks, why should either of us need to ask permission?
Why is iTunes doing so well except that it offers the option of watching what it is you want to watch? You cannot claim cable companies are providing that same degree of freedom; and there is mounting evidence they collude to keep you from actual freedom on these counts.
Again, they are able to collude only because of an artificial scarcity imposed by the government and by the physicalities of delivering cable service. The internet goes a long way toward eliminating that scarcity (as you point out with your iTunes example). In a free market, collusion is punished by competition from new entrants.
The world I want to live in allows consenting adults whatever freedoms do not infringe on others'. But it also looks out for people whom are not consenting. Children
So would a free market health system work better? I suggest no: most people are not equipped to have a good idea whether a doctor is good, or a total quack. This is the problem with any expert. If you don't know as much as you need to, it's unlikely you're going to have a good handle on how good they are. And thus, we need a third-party non-invested source to give us the skinny.
I agree. But why should that source be the government? Why couldn't there be multiple private certifying agencies in competition with each other? You seem to value consensus, so why do you insist that all doctors be certified by one central agency? (If that's not what you're insisting, I apologize.)
Should it cost a lot for doctors to get licensed? Yes, because they're important, and it's important that we make sure they're good.
Broken record here, but it should cost a lot only if the market places a high value on that service.
You are, of course, free to get your health care from an unlicensed quack. But the government can't allow such people to mix in with doctors they are signing off on; the harm there is obvious and great.
But that's just my point: I'm not free to get my health care from an unlicensed person, quack or not. You can go to prison for practicing medicine without a license, unless you stick to a small list of allowed procedures. I'm not saying the government shouldn't endorse doctors and medical schools -- just that it shouldn't be the only authority, and that I should be able to value that endorsement as I see fit (or even ignore it entirely).
Arguing the public airwaves aren't a commons issue is different, though. I expect that 20 years this will be a moot point, but as it stands now, yes, you can totally turn off the TV. But allowing a free-for-all in terms of content would mean that a child looking for a particular program would be faced with a challenge (nearly) equivalent to finding a book appropriate to them in a library overrun with pornography. I may not have a problem with this. You may not have a problem with this. But surely we can see how the general consensus is that it's not exactly alright?
I think the only tenable position is that it's up to the individual parents. If TV becomes a porn-fest and you think that's bad for your kids, get rid of it or invest in technology that allows you to control what they watch. Don't invest in government regulation that allows you to control what I watch.
This is one of those problems that is more appropriately solved by technology and good parenting than by regulation, and it's better for democracy that way too.
And realize that this is entirely separate from whether a thing can be said at all. Only a few, truly maladjusted people think that pornography, say, should be banished. But there is a difference between allowing speech and allowing it anywhere, anytime. The difficult question is how to draw the bright line between what is a reasonable restriction and what is tyrannical restriction.
Certainly -- but in almost all cases, there's a better way to achieve the desired result than by content restriction. Shouting in the middle of the street at 4 a.m. isn't a free speech issue, since the noise itself causes harm -- but posting leaflets in the same street at the same time of night is OK. The issue isn't content, or when-and-where, but the ancillary effects of the chosen delivery method. If I can deliver my speech in such a way that anyone who feels harmed by it can choose not to receive it -- for example, by turning off the TV -- then punishing me for the content of my speech IS tyranny, plain and simple.