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.
"70% of 70%" is a nice way to avoid saying "less than half".
It almost succeeds in making it sound like "PRACTICALLY EVERYONE!"
I respond to your sigs
Who said anything about censorship? This was a push to get more regulatory control over the cable industry in order to do things like force a la carte subscription options. You could argue that government has no place to regulate private industry like that, but that has nothing to do with free speech or censorship.
Also, the FCC doesn't cover cable-only channels like FX (lots of "shit" and near nudity there with shows like The Shield and Nip/Tuck, with only self-regulation stopping them from going further), in terms of censorship. They cover broadcast channels that then happen to be re-distributed via cable.
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.
TFA is light on details, but it seems the proposal that was withdrawn was something about requiring cable companies to play material from minority-owned small businesses on the "excess channels" they don't use.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.
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.
"so-called "70/70" rule -- 70% of US households passed by cable and 70% of those with access to cable service subscribing to it."
so only 30% of US household were NOT passed by cable, and have access to it. And of those 30% who can access cable, only 70% chose to subscribe to it. In conclusion:
70% of households can't have cable
21% of households pay for cable
10**% of households STEAL cable
(**=3% statistical margin of error)
Go tell mom! You heard it first on slashdot. The whole industry has been a miserable failure. The size of tubes required to carry high definition content is so large, the raw materials required for such tubes would strip 4 feet of entire Alaskan top soil. This is why I can only get television through my phone line. I only get one channel. In mono. With no moving pictures.
That was the worst definition of so-called anything. Even by slashdot standards.
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.
YA!!! Fuck the FCC!!
I just bought a russian made transmitter (runs of rancid potatoes) in order to broadcast my own free channel about cats. C E T network. I'm having difficulties with selecting a stable frequency (russian letters are funny), so anything goes... (usually everybody's cell phone reception within a mile of the transmitter). The FCC doesn't like me having freedoms, and have been hot on my tail, so I installed the device on top of a garbage truck that does the neighborhood rounds daily.
I just wish the government would stay away from my private business. All they want is to protect monopoly of OLD moneys. Back in early '90s I set up my own beeper service, but got violently shut down. Apparently I was 'interfering' with aeroplanes and police business communications. Assholes. I think it's about high time to have airwave anarchy. Let the strongest signal win! Bring it on PBS! You may win elsewhere, but on my block it's gonna be all cats, all the time!
The current situation of constant rate increases far in excess of inflation and retarded technological innovation is definitive proof that sometimes government regulation is sorely needed. I strongly suspect that if you were a coal miner you'd be rather happy that the gov't has rules preventing you from working 15 hour days, 7 days a week, with no air filters. The next time you're in a car accident, you probably won't consider that it's government regulations that mandated crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, and other innovations that saved your life. Open your eyes and you might see that government regulations are not always bad.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
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?