Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IPTV Providers To Pay Same Regulatory Fees As Cable Companies

Posted by Soulskill on from the fcc-also-plans-to-bleep-all-swear-words-on-the-internet dept.

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. "

16 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. hmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:hmm? by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the article clearly states:

      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.

      And since the FCC does not regulate HULU or any other site sending video streams, it is NOT merely a money grab, but another way to shut down people streaming video of any kind, by simply declaring they failed to pay the fee. They've essentially brought the entire streaming video industry under their control by fiat!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re: hmm? by icebike · · Score: 2

      What about Ustream, (where anyone can stream just about anything from kittens to combat, and many foreign TV News stations stream 24/7?
      What about YouTube, where you can watch complete episodes of many tv shows?

      There are hundreds of other examples that they have just declared that they have authority to charge fees, even when they do nothing for these sites.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:hmm? by pthisis · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, they haven't. Read the FCC paper. The IPTV services they're discussing are essentially traditional cable services that use the Internet as their transport layer (e.g. AT&T ustream, CenturyLink Prism). They're clarifying that the exact technology used for regulated services doesn't create a loophole, not extending their regulation to Youtube or Hulu or Netflix (or ustream or justin.tv).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    4. Re: hmm? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      The mens rea only comes into play if the law states knowingly or something to that notion. If the law simply says it is illegal to download or stream unlicensed material, then it would be the same as driving on expired tags in someone else car with no insurance. You could be cited and found guilty just for the act whether you knew the tags were expired or the insurance had lapsed or not.

      The laws that mens rea impact have statements about the state of mind when the law or forbidden act happens. Without that, the act itself becomes illegal or forbidden or whatever regardless of the state of mind or intent.

  2. Why regulate it at all? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  3. why licensing? by stenvar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:why licensing? by pthisis · · Score: 2

      What justification in the world would there be for the FCC to regulate and license video transmissions over the Internet?

      There's nothing here about regulating Netflix or Hulu or Youtube or anything else that's just video transmissions over the Internet.

      IPTV refers to services like AT&T u-verse and CenturyLink PrismTV, that essentially use the internet to gateway traditional television signals. As the FCC analysis says, "[f]rom a customer's perspective, there is likely not much difference between IPTV and other video services, such as cable service".

      Their job was to ensure orderly sharing of the public airwaves, nothing else.

      This is false. The FCC from the outset was designed to regulate wired networks as well as broadcasts--it superseded the earlier FRC (the radio commission) which only dealt with the airwaves, and from its original charter in the Federal Communications Act of 1934 has been tasked with regulating telegraph, telephone, and other communications independent of the airwaves. From the very first section of the Act: "PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL
      COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio."

      This has been interpreted to include internet & broadband communications through court decisions that have since been explicitly affirmed by acts of Congress (including the Telecommunications act of 1996).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  4. Re:What you can be sure it will include by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

    What it won't include: Pirate Sites

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  5. Re:What you can be sure it will include by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What it won't include: Pirate Sites

    It will add new ammunition to prosecute them --- suddenly they are guilty of the federal crime of evading the tax man. With the FCC; if you fail to file and pay fees, they can assess massive forfeitures.

    For example mom and pop ISPs or VoIP providers that buy PSTN connectivity from a wholesalers that fail to meet the new complicated FCC Reporting requirements, about their number of customers down to the level of ZIP code and Census tract, can be assessed fines of millions of dollars a day, and thrown in jail until they pay.

  6. Dear FCC by rossdee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Internet is not only in the USA - it is also in the rest of the world and outside your jurisdiction

  7. Re:I cuut the cable 5yrs ago by pthisis · · Score: 3, Informative

    Netflix isn't an IPTV service, none of this applies to them (or likely to any of the sites you're talking about). It's to ensure that AT&T uverse, CenturyLink Prism, and the like (which are essentially cable/fios systems that use the internet for transmission rather than purpose-built lines) don't have a regulatory loophole simply because they use a different technology for transport.

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  8. Re:What you can be sure it will include by pthisis · · Score: 3, Informative

    False. It includes only licensees, which are things like AT&T uverse and CenturyLink Prism. As they note in the paper, it's basically stuff that to the end-user looks exactly like cable ("[f]rom a customer's perspective, there is likely not much difference between IPTV and other video services, such as cable service") but happens to use the Internet for data transport rather than dedicated cable lines. It's not an extension to generic video streaming a la Netflix, Youtube, hulu, justin.tv, whatever.

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  9. New tech same old story by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    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.
  10. Re:What you can be sure it will include by Kohath · · Score: 2

    I don't think any pirate streaming sites are within the jurisdiction of the FCC.

    Neither are IPTV sites.

  11. Am I the only one that wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.