Slashdot Mirror
IPTV Providers To Pay Same Regulatory Fees As Cable Companies
An anonymous reader writes "The FCC is looking to put regulatory fees on a per-subscriber basis for IPTV providers. 'We will assess regulatory fees on Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) licensees and we will create a new fee category that will include both cable television and IPTV,' says the report. What services they consider IPTV is yet to be seen; they call it simply 'digital television delivered through a high speed Internet connection.' We can only hope it doesn't affect too many internet video sites. "
I think this is more for "broadcasting channel 2" by the ISP in a manner that would require a "TV tuner" and not "you must pay to watch youtube/hulu/netflix" of which the latter are subscription services that have no bearing on you watching it on DSL, Cable or Satellite.
Like, if a site like Hulu were to have a "channel" that is only available with a "TV" subscription then yes it should fall under this.
I do not see how FCC thinks they will collect on those fees. I been watching shows for years off the net and all has been free. So 5% of $0 is $0.
Maybe they are trying to collect on ad clicks? I don't click them so again $0.
Lastly most of the sites I watch is outside the US. So they are like what? $0
To be far though, I did have Netflix, but my wife canceled that subscription after buying ChromeCast and finding out no 3mo free NetFlix becuase she bought it 30 minutes to late. Also Goolge did not document that well, seemed "bait and switch".
We actually have only 2 TVs: 32" on wife;s desk she uses as montior and 23" in bedroom w/ annena to watch late night after kids go to sleep. But then again 8 compters with screens, who needs TV.
Why does the FCC need to regulate IPTV at all? It's not like traditional TV where viewers are stuck with a few providers that have an FCC granted monopoly through spectrum allocation, or a single cable company granted a monopoly by municipal contracts.
What is there to regulate with IPTV? If you don't like your IPTV provider, you can choose another one instantly.
The FTC can regulate the IPTV providers like any other business to prevent monopoly abuse, unfair business practices, etc. Why does the FCC need to get involved?
Another name for government imposed "regulatory fees" is a "tax".
Do not worry , they will find a way to make all content on the internet including you tube new paid for by subscription services. .. they will milk the internet cow till she's giving powdered milk .
Claiming it's fair return because most of what we find there is copyrighted material being shown illegally , hence lost revenues for the majors bla bla
Dont worry
What justification in the world would there be for the FCC to regulate and license video transmissions over the Internet? Their job was to ensure orderly sharing of the public airwaves, nothing else.
Internet streaming sites. Expanding the definition of cable service: the whole purpose is to get additional fees from media streaming.
MAYBE All Internet Service Providers.
Maybe other video streaming sites; and web site operators that embed streaming video from these providers ("rebroadcasters")
DBS is better then comcast for tv
The Internet is not only in the USA - it is also in the rest of the world and outside your jurisdiction
This is IPTV, not internet streaming. This is AT&T Uverse. You want AT&T to pay more taxes don't you? To pay for regulation and have someone over them keeping their greed in check right? Yeah the gov isn't doing that well right now but its gotta start somewhere.
This is broadcast over the internet where you don't get a choice of when and how to watch, you have to tune in. They are considering adding these fees to direct broadcast satellite. These are about broadcasters, not services such as YouTube.
also, from the article...
"The fees are designed to recover the costs that the FCC incurs in administering licenses and the like and are based on the number of full-time employees dedicated to such functions on a bureau-by-bureau basis."
So regulatory recapture of expenditures involved in regulating this stuff, aka a long overdue fees to cover the costs of regulating this type of broadcaster in the first place.
There is very little to see here at this time. We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast of....The Hypnotoad. *BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*
Its not the medium that is important, but the method. Broadcasting is, in this case, a channel or selection of channels of content that the viewer can receive in real time. It is not VOD, it is a constant issuance of data that the user cannot schedule himself.
That's why its regulated. Unlike VOD anyone "tuning in" to the channel receives the same datastream at the same time, regardless of location, and terrestrial broadcasting has rules and regulations and licenses to keep any idiot and his dog from blasting stuff all over the spectrum. Admittedly in this instance it technically would not apply, since broadcasting over the web is far different that over the airwaves. No spectrum to manage, no device interferences, and all the little things that come with aiming massive microwave transmitters into the sky. But then again it might. There may soon come a time when they have to discuss peering arrangements, and net neutrality because the major broadcasters start bringing their little turf wars to the web.
But that's another discussion. In this instance no, they are not going after streaming sites anytime soon, they don't want to deal with them yet, they have far too many other things to deal with right now. And there's jurisdiction to deal with as well and they really really do not want to wade into that.
This is at the behest of somebody to use government to twist somebody else to their advantage. End of story.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
As an AT&T Uverse subscriber, I definitely want the FCC to start regulating my IPTV. To the end user, the services provided by Uverse are identical to those provided by Comcast except that Comcast is more strongly regulated by the FCC. Perhaps the most immediate concern to me is that Uverse requires all subscribers to indefinitely rent their equipment. There is no rent to own for AT&T, and there are no 3rd party options. You must rent their DVR. You must rent their set-top boxes.
With Comcast the situation is not much better, but it _is_ better. You can purchase a TiVo, or an HD Homerun Prime, or a Ceton InfiniTV and use a CableCard. This was mandated by the FCC because they are allowed to regulate cable TV. I would definitely like the FCC to begin regulating AT&T, and force them to allow 3rd party devices such as PC tuners and TiVo-like DVRs.
Obviously their jurisdiction would have to be properly limited, but I definitely see benefits to allowing the FCC to regulate IPTV offerings.
Will this carry the same PEG (Public/Education/Government) requirements that cable has to follow? If so, I needs to be better implemented. That would be pretty nifty though.
samething for DBS use the smartcard like an cablecard and let me buy my own DBS box.
The FCC was created to regulate radio.
It shouldn't be regulating cable tv and has no right to regulate internet communication.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Prisoner 1 - "hey buddy, whatcha in for?"
Prisoner 2 - "smokin a joint, what u in for?"
Prisoner 1 - "Streaming a video of my cat."
Prisoner 2 - "My god man, you got some serious balls."
The FCC exists for the sake of the FCC. Get rid of those bums.
Which is an excellent service, BTW.
The main reasons for an FCC are to prevent monopolization of the existing infrastructure and to determine the usage of wireless frequencies. IP-based services do not fall in either category. The FCC just wants to seem relevant.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!