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.

Comments

This isn't (yet) about censorship.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

TFA is light on details, but it seems the proposal that was withdrawn was something about requiring cable companies to play material from minority-owned small businesses on the "excess channels" they don't use. Still questionable, but not "OMG the FCC wants to censor my cable TV!"

And BTW, the "fuck the FCC" people might want to consider that the fight here is between the FCC and CABLE COMPANIES about stuff like whether they should be required to provide a la carte channel options. Stuff that the cable companies may not want, but which doesn't seem to have a whole lot of bearing on free-speech issues. If you want to argue that a government bureaucracy is worse than a corporate oligarchy, that's a fair stance, but having both filed federal taxes and tried to get a decent internet plan from Comcast, I'm ambivalent.

Re:This isn't (yet) about censorship.

[iminplaya]

If they want to require anything, it should be for one dedicated channel with a live area weather map. The bandwidth is low and the costs are minimal. But requiring any community service at all is just too "socialist" for some, I guess. The real problem is the fact that the cable companies are granted monopolies in their respective communities. That should be the first thing to go.

Not sure what this means

[Orange Crush]

On the one hand, Comcast and their ilk have been dragging their heels implementing things like CableCard and working hard to keep their (in many cases) geographical monopolies safe from any other competition. As far as TV goes, most people's options boil down to little more than an antenna, DirecTV or The Cable Company. If there was an injection of more competition in the market I think we'd see a lot more innovative services like more robust video on demand, ala carte programming options, more and higher quality HD channels, and innovative new services we haven't even thought of.

On the other hand, this 70/70 rule sounds downright silly, as I doubt very much that's the case nationwide. The FCC has proven time and time again that it's an inept bureaucracy more interested in maintaining its own power and relevance than any concern for the public good. Handing them more power is seldom good for anybody.

I might be able to get onboard with something like a 70/70 rule if it was a little more automatic and less prone to government meddling. i.e. Let's say Comcast has 70% of 70% or more in a given metropolitan area--then kick in a rule forcing them to resell wholesale access to their infrastructure to other local competitors to keep them from being the only game in town. And before someone points out it's *their* infrastructure and they built and bought it--they did so with a lot of government subsidies and that infrastructure is sitting on a lot of public land. They only have mini-monopolies because the government has allowed it.

I'm interested to hear other people's takes on the pros and cons of all of this.

Re:Not sure what this means

[Pax681]

In the UK British Telecom HAD a monopoly in every sense of the word due to them owning ALL the telephone landline infrastructure. now this was ALL built with piblic money as BT used to be part of the Post Office and was sold off by the Brit govt in the 80's when that old bag thatcher started selling everything off that was publicly owned..lol Now a few years back BT were MADE to sell wholesale access to other telephone companies and ISP's to the point where they HAD to allow other companies to put equipment in the exchanges, this is called LLU(local loop unbundling). it's very good and has done great things for pricing and competition. i pay £22 GBP for a ADSL2+ connection and get 22419 down and 2446 up)pretty maxed out for ADSL2+) from bethere.co.uk. (i am lucky to be only 382 metres from the exchange by wire) i would think the wholesale idea for US cable woud do wonders for choice and price and also stop the need for the FCC to step in. also as an added bonus, the unbundling might drive the wholesale companies tp update and modernise their infrastruceture to give you fellows better and higher speeds which seems to be somewhat lacking in the US. BUT choice is what is needed and the wholesale option will do that and most probably assist in price wars(always a good thing) now all we need is for Scotland(where i live) to become independent so we can bin the license fee for the TV here which is a complete load of CRAPIOCA and utterly bollocks

Re:70/70

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Actually, according to the cable industry, 58% of TV households have basic cable.

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=54

Those statistics also say that there are 122,500,000 homes "passed by cable" out of 112,00,000 homes with television... so apparently cable is available to 109% of households, which I'd say is pretty impressive.

Re:Just what we need.

[Anonymous Coward]

"They always know and do whats best for you and me!"

And the alternative would be.... the cable company, which I work for one (small one). Would you pay 10$ to rent a cable card? That new TiVO is going to cost you 13$ a month from TiVO and 20$ from your cable company for dual cable card service.

The company I work for naturally drags its feet when it comes to adopting this stuff, the best way to prevent widespread use is to charge an ass load for it. The only cool thing about my company is that if you want to subscribe to HD Only channels, you can. Limited basic + digital access + box rental + hd tier. Comcast requires exp basic + digital classic + box rental + hd tier.

In the next few years, consumers are going to be screwed over on both ends. Forced to pay for both Analog and HD channels, even if the household only has HDTVs.

Let the fleecing continue!

Schizophrenic FCC

[grumling]

So they want to force all-la-carte programming, but also force a bunch of must-carry programming as well? Who's going to be paying for the must-carry stuff? What happens when cable companies move toward an all on-demand architecture and the concept of a channel disappears (it is being tested by most companies now, and is how AT&T U-verse works)? They won't have any unused bandwidth, so does it become a moot point?

Are they going to force the satellite guys to do this in areas where they are dominant (and yes, in many rural areas, there are many more Dishes than cable lines on houses)?

And why are they picking on cable companies when I can't get a discount on my cell phone bill, even though I bought an unlocked, unsubsidized phone?

Re:Fuck the FCC

[SeaFox]

Why does the FCC get to censor the airwaves?

Because they are the government agency that was granted this power by the legislative branch, which was granted its power by you.

Can police arrest me for saying "Fuck" in a public place?

Depending on where you are, yes they can. State and local decency laws exist in many areas making swearing an actual crime, although generally they would fine you rather than taking you to jail.

What part about Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to understand?

Weaselly loophole here. The decency standards are more under the control of the FCC, not Congress itself, so Congress has not actually not made any laws abridging freedom of speech, the FCC did. Also note that freedoms stop when they interfere with others' rights.

Things the Government Can Do

[neuromancer2701]

I agree that the government does need to get involved but in a different way. Currently to get a TV license you must apply to each municipality for that area. This causes situations like the one I used to live in. We used to live in Northern Virgina and we were forced to use Comcast when right across the street other people had Cox. The key was that the Cable companies did collude with each other because the Cox customers could not get Comcast either. Having price control in this situation would be horrible. My service sucks as it is, what is going to happen when they are forced to lower their prices.

The way the government can help is to pass a National TV license, one license to conquer them all. This would open the door for phone companies(I know Verizon is not a great example but I would rather have them than Comcast) to enter the market and may encourage cable companies to leave their little shelter municipalities. Getting more service providers(>2) to be in one area should be the goal not price controls.