Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Congress Turns Up The Heat on FCC's Chairman

Posted by Zonk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 02:21 PM
from the is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-it-just-kevin-martin dept.
United States Government Media Television News
Fletch writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin could be in for an uncomfortable spring, as House Energy Committee Chair John Dingel (D-MI) has requested a truckload of FCC paperwork relating to some controversial decisions Martin has made. Those include the FCC's reversal on the a la carte cable issue and newspaper-television cross-ownership restrictions. 'This request has got to be turning the FCC completely upside down. Significantly, it appears to reflect a bipartisan discontent with Martin's performance. Democrats and some Republicans are upset over his recent move to relax one of the agency's key media ownership rules, as well as the rushed manner in which he handled the matter late last year. Other Republicans dislike what they see as Martin's persecution of the cable industry, especially Comcast.' The Committee originally announced its intention to investigate the FCC in January."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: FCC Head Supports Ala Carte Cable 295 comments
MikeyTheK writes "PC Magazine Reports that Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC, supports ala carte cable. In a letter to several minority groups on Wednesday, Martin said "While I believe all consumers would benefit from channels being sold in a more a la carte manner, minority consumers, especially those living in Spanish speaking homes, might benefit most of all,". He goes on to argue "Cable companies act as gatekeepers into the programming allowed by the expanded basic cable package, preventing independent content producers from reaching viewers,", citing the example of Black Family Television, which was forced to go online-only because cable operators refused to carry it, even after it reached 16 million homes."
[+] Congress To Investigate FCC 252 comments
SirLurksAlot writes to let us know that Congress is planning to question the FCC on the way the commission is run. From the article: "The FCC — and Chairman Kevin Martin in particular — are in hot water with Congress... While Martin was at CES, telling all who would listen that the FCC will investigate Comcast's traffic-shaping practices, the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced a formal investigation of the FCC. The news couldn't be more welcome to the industries that the FCC regulates.'"
Submission: Congress turns up heat on FCC Chairman by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Congress Turns Up The Heat on FCC's Chairman 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • he should refuse to testify (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Adult film producer (866485) <van@i2pmail.org> on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:23PM (#22742586)
    just ignore congress and shred every last document. Why not? Everybody else on Bush's team does this and gets away with it. Democrats in congress make a lot of noise but always bend over and take it when Bush gets angry.

      • Re:he should refuse to testify (Score:5, Funny)

        by Gat0r30y (957941) on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:47PM (#22742828) Homepage Journal

        its a statement of fact
        Yea, but you don't have to be a dick about it.
        Wait a minute, whats your name again? Maybe you do have to be a dick about it.
      • You asshole moderators, stop modding "troll" just because you disagree with someone's statements. That kind of behavior makes you worse than half the government pricks that get discussed here.
        • actually, most of the comments marks where trolls. It might not be as apparent to you if you have been drinking the koolaid and think it was fact, but it was merely lose opinion presented as fact and done in a way that purposely trolled.

          • Re:This is not troll!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Thursday March 13 2008, @03:27PM (#22743330)
            I completely disagree with you, which was my point.

            Satire is NOT trolling. Even if he trolls a lot, a comment presented as satire (as this appeared to me) is not trolling.

            I have seen MANY cases of satire marked (incorrectly) as "troll". I would appreciate it if people would take the trouble to learn the difference.
          • I did not say that the modding was worse. I said their behavior was worse. Those are two different things.

            I felt it was pretty clear that I meant they were doing something that is at least as morally questionable as those they often criticize.

  • Reaction from Comcast! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:24PM (#22742600)
    Whew!

    The checks cleared in time.

  • Saying congress is turning up the heat on the FCC is like saying Chaney is turning up the heat on Bush to get out of Iraq. They serve the same agenda and they're not looking out for the people.

    Nothing short of removing power from both congress and the FCC will keep these jokers from leeching from the public.
    • Not quite. Obviously the FCC is stepping on quite a few toes with the Comcast traffic forgery fiasco. I wonder how much it costs to use Congress to "turn up the heat" on something. The FCC Chairman is not an elected official so its a lot harder to purchase the rulings you want out of him. It only make sense that Comcast found it easier to buy some Congressmen.

      I bet if you examine how these politicians' next campaigns are financed you'll find the money trail back to Comcast.

      • Re:Congress turns up heat? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday March 13 2008, @03:04PM (#22743002) Journal

        Yeah, this is a really rather disturbing abuse of Congress's oversight authority. For the first time since I was born, we finally have an FCC Chairman who actually stands up for the general public. What happens? Republicans and Democrats freak out because serving the public interest is not in the interest of either party. God forbid that the FCC Chairman might actually do his job and regulate scarce resources in a way that promotes fairness and equal access, provides maximum public utility, and preserves the viability of those resources for future generations....

        Some of the things this Chairman has done include:

        • Standing up to Comcast for their egregious abuse of the TCP/IP protocol to cause downloads to disconnect after a few seconds. This breaks lots of protocols, not just BitTorrent.
        • Standing up to cable companies and satellite providers, pushing for a la carte availability of channels.
        • Removing antiquated ownership rules whose only effect in a modern, online world is to drive ailing newspapers out of business for lack of the abilitty to consolidate with anyone.
        • Taking a stand in favor of network neutrality, ensuring that ISPs can't hold the traffic of clients of other ISPs hostage and ensuring that providers cannot give preferential treatment to their own VoIP services over those of their competitors.

        I'm sure there are others. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Bush actually got something right. Judging by the backlash from Republicans, I'm assuming it was an error on his part, but still, we as a community need to rally behind this guy.

        • Don't forget, it is approaching a major election year. Many of the republicans will be attempting to distance themselves from Bush while some will be trying to imitate democrats to get reelected. This doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't an accident, but it shed some different light on the topic.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Meor (711208)
        Major corporations are always in the pockets of Congress and it'll always be that way. People are blind, they call congress corrupt and then expect them to eliminate corruption in another government organization. The American people are getting played from both sides down the middle; half don't know it, 1/3 don't care, and the rest don't know what to do about it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by TheCRAIGGERS (909877)
        Just out of curiosity, why do you say it's "harder to purchase the rulings you want" out of people that aren't elected? Just like sales people from vendors that take me out to lunch and offer free game tickets and mugs and pens and vacations and all kinds of other crap. In politics it's called "contributions." In sales it's called "gifts."

        Actually, it seems like it would be easier to have somebody that's not elected bought, since politicians have to publicly show who is giving them money.

  • How it reads to me... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kazrath (822492) on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:26PM (#22742624)
    Comcast & other big media could not fully corrupt the FCC into doing what they want but with greater power comes greater corruption and congress turned out to be easier.

        • The sex wasn't the problem with Spitzer. If there was no money involved it would've been news for a while but after that the only people who cared would be Republicans looking for an excuse to hate him.

  • Persecution of those who deserve it? Oh My! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:29PM (#22742644)
    Comcast deserves all the examination it has gotten, and more. They have been terrible.

    And "a la carte" cable is the obvious and fair thing to do. The claims of "undue burden" and "technically infeasible" are just so much crap. If they have the tecnical capability to do "On Demand", then they have the technical capability to do a la carte. Q.E.D.

    Plain and simple: they just don't want to. Because then they can't charge exhorbitant rates for their bundled "packages".
    • I thought the packages were set up to cover the high cost of certain channels, e.g., ESPN. I mean, in addition to being designed to fuck over subscribers.
      • That may be true, but why does the consumer have to pay for it? Either ESPN (or whoever) lowers their prices to be competitive, or understands that for that kind of pricing, they'll have less orders.
      • I thought the packages were set up to cover the high cost of certain channels, e.g., ESPN.

        That may or may not be correct but I distinctly remember reading a comment last year on this subject. Essentially, it's not that the cable providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc) don't want to offer ala carte (despite their protestations that they can't technically do it) but rather it is the Viacoms and other programmers who won't let it happen.

        If you, as Comcast, want to provide your butt fucks (er, subscriber

    • Re:Persecution of those who deserve it? Oh My! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:48PM (#22742838)
      Comcast is only a symptom. Comcast would not be able to get away with what it currently can if not for the local monopolies handed to it by the government. The company has manipulated the government to avoid upgrading their lines to actually handle the bandwidth they claim to their customers.

      "Comcast deserves all the examination it has gotten, and more. They have been terrible."

      The real problem, though, is that the government is able to impose such monopolies on us. It's pointless to go after companies as they become problems, because these companies will continue to spring up. The effective approach is to stop the problem at the source: get politics out of money. Don't permit legislation that creates monopolies and destroys competition. Trash these FCC regulations, and the market will take care of itself. People will have choices, and companies will have to compete to offer what people want at the lowest price possible. And idiotic situations such as the one we currently find ourselves in will not be able to thrive.
      • It is also part of the cause. The argument "I did it because I could" is not morally or ethically defensible. Unfortunately, it might be legally defensible. But that's not good enough for me.
        • Agreed, however, that statement "I did it because I could" is also being made by the politicians who make these regulations. If you legally remove the ability to add restrictions such as this to the market, you prevent the market from being deformed as it currently is in the case of internet service.
          • If I understand you properly, I disagree. That is to say, I agree that the unhealthy connection between money and politics should be eliminated. On the other hand, certain antitrust rules (precisely the sort that have prevented content carries from being owned or influenced by content providers) are absolutely necessary, as history has very clearly shown.

            Reasonable antitrust (i.e., anti-monopoly) rules are not "unnecessary regulation". They are meta-rules that keep everyone working WITHIN the rules of th

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Red Flayer (890720)

          The argument "I did it because I could" is not morally or ethically defensible. Unfortunately, it might be legally defensible.

          That which is not forbidden is allowed.

          We cannot demand that people obey some moral code, when morality is subjective. This is why in the Old Testament there are the 10 Commandments, not the 10 guidelines for moral behavior. This is why Hammurabi's Code existed. This is why the legal system is based on blacklisting disallowed behaviours, not whitelisting appropriate ones.

          Unless

      • . The effective approach is to stop the problem at the source: get politics out of money. Don't permit legislation that creates monopolies and destroys competition. Trash these FCC regulations, and the market will take care of itself.

        Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh god, that's good... so idealistic, it's kinda cute.

        Never heard of a natural monopoly, huh? Or barriers to entry? I can only assume not, since most libertarian idealists have to pretend these things don't exist in order to maintain their illusions.

        See, cont
  • How many people in the US still rely solely on newspapers for their news? If the point of this cross-ownership restriction is to prevent manipulation of the media, the manipulation will be restricted to the media under the company's ownership. Once people realize the company is feeding them bad information (which they can more and more easily accomplish thanks to the internet), the company will get a bad image and be rejected by willing individuals. A newspaper is only as strong as its readership base.

    Re

    • It is called "Sheeple". (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:47PM (#22742826)
      Not all people are as independent-thinking as you are. The Iraq "war" -- and the continued presence of Gworge W. Bush -- are excellent examples, demonstrating that an awful lot of people in this country believe what they are told by the media, no matter how ridiculous it is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by amplt1337 (707922)
      A newspaper is only as strong as its readership base.

      Remind me again where the problem is?

      It's in the readership base -- when was the last time the average American actually looked at (say) a foreign newspaper? Let alone a foreign-language one.

      That said, there's no reason for the FCC to go out of their way to enable Information Domination. And do you seriously think that any of these companies would be happy to leave the Internet as an unsullied source of pure truth from outside their grip? No, they'll
      • "That said, there's no reason for the FCC to go out of their way to enable Information Domination."

        The FCC does what it does because its members are influenced by friends and financiers. The reason I have only one cable choice in my area is due to government interference.

        "No, they'll try to monetize that, and (as collateral damage) limit citizens' access to external sources of information."

        How exactly can a company with no political influence be able to limit my access to anything? It is only becau

        • The reason I have [deleted: only] one cable choice in my area is due to government interference.

          You really think any private enterprise could arrange for the right of ways without governemnt interference? Or, if you are in a rural area, that it is cost effective to run a wire to you and maintain it?

          If the local newspaper refuses to print news from outside the city, I will drop them and subscribe to another paper offering more news

          Really? How many papers do you have where you live. Most major cities se

          • "You really think any private enterprise could arrange for the right of ways without government interference?"

            They would want to because there would be demand for it. People want the internet, and companies want profits. It is only when you politically force the market to give people only one choice that companies are able to keep prices high and make ridiculous restrictions to save their asses. Given the choice between a company blocking P2P and one allowing it, I would choose the latter and influence m
        • The FCC does what it does because its members are influenced by friends and financiers.
          Sorry, I think you missed my point -- there's no reason that we should encourage the FCC to go out of its way to make media consolidation a reality.
          As to whether a hundred flowers would bloom in the absence of "natural monopoly" rulings, I respect the logic of your position, but I think it's naive about the power of an entrenched going concern which owns the wires.

          It is only because politics (laws, regulations) are tied t
          • "I think it's naive about the power of an entrenched going concern which owns the wires."

            That may be. I was simply trying to show what the ultimate goal should look like, not necessarily how to get there.

            "No, really it's just the money. If they own every local newspaper and all the ones outside the city (or their equivalents do), then you're hosed."

            How? Once people realize they're being fed misinformation, demand will surge for a local paper with news closer to the truth, and individuals will see t
  • Some of the congressmen think that he's making it too easy for the cable companies to make money by relaxing ownership rules and eliminating the a la carte initiative. While some other members think he's making it too hard for them to spoof customer packets and interfere with any and all traffic that they feel like. No matter if he goes easy or hard on them, it seems like someone is going to want his head. I kinda feel bad for him, then again I agree with the guys that question the a la carte reversal.

  • A re-energized House flexes their muscle.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by postbigbang (761081) on Thursday March 13 2008, @02:43PM (#22742778)
    And Martin is a great target, because communications decision-making is so controversial. However, there's still a huge number of telco/carrier contributions to various political campaigns and funds that are being ignored here. What of the millions of dollars used to influence policy and legislation? What of congressmen that shill for MPAA/RIAA and the cable/comm companies? It's all PR. Nothing but media blasts and putting Martin on the hotseat (which he richly deserves, for so many reasons).

  • Not to defend the Cable companies but.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gybrwe666 (1007849) on Thursday March 13 2008, @03:05PM (#22743020)
    There is more to a la carte channel selection than simply the will of the Cable Co's themselves.

    The reality is that the bulk of programming costs for the cable company are directly attributable to a few companies, such as Disney, HBO, etc.

    First, you have to understand how pricing for channels from the channel owners is done. Its done based on volume, usually negotiated per head. When Disney and a provider (doesn't matter is its cable or satellite) negotiate a contract, they end up with a per-consumer cost that the cable company pays to carry the channel.

    There are two reasons that more than 50% of the channels are complete crap.

    1) The really crappy ones are so low cost that they have a negligible effect on the consumer. Channels provided by the non-big companies fall in this category. The one that comes to mind is the Christian Broadcast Network, which only cost pennies per month to the cable companies.

    2) The bundle effect. In order to sell advertising, the big media providers (Disney, etc.) want to have as many channels as possible carried, preferably the ones that are in the starter bundles. Therefore, you get at least 3-5 ESPN channels. Unfortunately, none of the cable (or satellite) providers have any negotiating ability here at all. This is unregulated territory, so Disney will just sit back on its haunches and say, "You want ESPN? Guess what...you have to also put ESPN2, ESPN Classic, and ESPN Sports Nobody Cares About" in your Basic Tier.

    Do you really think that a local cable provider will be able to refuse? So Disney ends up with a fairly significant portion of channels, which means they get to sell more ad revenue, and build up aftermarket sales of DVD's and paraphenalia.

    The cable company is damned if they don't, effectively. They can't negotiate, as there isn't much choice about carrying Disney Channel and ESPN.

    So, because of these contractual agreements, the cable companies *CANNOT* unbundle channels, at least in any meaningful way. Because there are only a handful of meaningful channels provided by a handful of extremely large companies, unbundling would, at best, mean having a Disney group, a TimeWarner group, etc. And the big media conglomerates will *NEVER* allow this. If they did, it would eat into their already shrinking ad revenues so fast the shareholders might explode.

    So, not to defend the cable companies, but this matter is one that is largely unregulated, and the cable companies are unable to win the battle. While this isn't the only factor (certainly the cable companies want to charge you as much as possible for as many tiers of service as possible), it is one of the biggest. Remember, the highest margins for the cable companies are in the in-house services they control: data, phone, etc. When they have to pay per subscriber (or per event, such as On-Demand or PPV) they don't make nearly as much as they do for services they control.

    Remember, also, that some channels *ARE* regulated by government, especially local access channels (my system carries 3-4 of them, I think). This is a huge waste of bandwidth that the cable companies are contractually obligated to provide in order to get local franchises. Again, crap. A waste of resources. But the cable company has no choice but to spend a ton of money and bandwidth to meet these obligations.

    The future of cable is obviously to move to digital only services. I know of one small cable company that is actively looking to migrate to PacketCable exclusively, which means that they would deliver everything via packets, rather than channels. The minute the FCC lets the cable companies drop Analog services, expect this to happen quickly.

    However, its unfair to only blame the Cable Co's. The Big Media is as much to blame if not more than anyone else.

    Bill

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AK Marc (707885)
      First, you have to understand how pricing for channels from the channel owners is done.

      I understand and think that a la carte should still be done. What's the bottom line? The cable providers have to take in more than they spend, or they go out of business. Great, so they price the a la carte such that it makes them money. Period. It doesn't matter how they buy it, all that matters is that they sell it for whatever they are selling it for now. The reason they don't like it is uncertainty. Rather th

    • Re:Not to defend the Cable companies but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dubbreak (623656) on Thursday March 13 2008, @06:28PM (#22745586)
      So explain to me how legislating à la carte programming doesn't solve this issue?

      If all carriers are forced to provide à la carte programming then Disney loses it's heavy weight bargaining chip. If Disney tries to charge a particular carrier more per customer, the carrier responds, "Fine, but less of our customers will subscribe."

      There is no, "You must put these on the base tier." As there is no base tier, or at least the customers aren't forced to order it. Pricing becomes priced by consumer price elasticity (plus a margin of profit for the carriers). This is exactly as it should be.

      One question for an American versed in sales and consumer laws: Do American laws allow selling the same service or product to different customers at different rates with little or no restrictions? I am all for bulk discounts, but in my experience if you offer one customer a bulk discount another customer purchasing the same quantity must get the same rate... different laws though.
  • Democrats and Republicans in bed with the corporations. It's all about Comcast, a witch-hunt, pure and simple. It's pretty unnerving to see this unfold.
  • We need a la carte and open cable boxes Why should I have to pay $5+ per TV just for the box???

    Why can't the FCC fix the cable card mess?
    • The summary seems to suggest that some in Congress want Comcast to have the freedom to throttle its traffic the way it does, and the FCC was standing in their way.
      • Comcast would not be able to get away with what it currently can if not for the local monopolies handed to it by the government. The company has manipulated the government to avoid upgrading their lines to actually handle the bandwidth they claim to their customers.

        The real problem, though, is that the government is able to impose such monopolies on us. It's pointless to go after companies as they become problems, because these companies will continue to spring up. The effective approach is to stop the p

      • Re:Go congress! (did I just say that?) (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sandbags (964742) on Thursday March 13 2008, @03:01PM (#22742968) Journal
        This is because cable and satellite companies fill the pockets of congressmen with continual loads of fresh green cash... These companies have powerful lobyists. They understand that under a la carte they will no longer be able to charge people $49 for basic cable when all people want is 15-20 chanels. they also understand that if they value certain chanels too highly under a la carte, then those chanels will fall dramatically in ratings as people switch to watching programming on less expensive cable networks. Cable companies will loose money under a la carte, I have no doubt about it, and they have no intention of letting it happen. The millions they blow in kickbacks and other funding given to congressmen is nothing compared to what's at stake under a la carte.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by RKBA (622932)
          As a fifth generation American, I find it bizarre that most people seem to be aware that we are being governed by hired prostitutes, and yet everyone seems to think it's "normal".

    • Re:Go congress! (did I just say that?) (Score:4, Informative)

      by Alzheimers (467217) on Thursday March 13 2008, @03:07PM (#22743042)
      IIRC, the reason why the cable companies don't want A-La Carte pricing is because the law only applies to consumers.

      Businesweek 12/7/05 [businessweek.com]

      While it may be years before any such model is put in place and it's hard to say how the end result will look, a consensus is emerging that some channels would suffer -- if not fall away altogether. Content providers now compel cable operators to offer their niche channels by bundling them with must-haves like ESPN or MTV. Without being bundled into a bigger package, less popular channels such as ESPN Classic and MTV2 could struggle to garner a large enough audience to survive.

      So while the consumer can choose what channels he or she wants, the cable company still has to pay for it. It's kind of like if the Grocery Store (cable company) forced you (the consumer) to buy the fruit salad because they bought all their fruit from the same company (TV station) who charges them the same regardless of how many individual pineapples or watermelons they bought. Oh, and noone else is making these varieties of pineapples or watermelons. Now, if you want Papaya (specialty station) you can go to the Grocery Store down the street (Satellite) but they make their fruit salad without the Pineapples which you want.

      So the consumer's best option is to get his tropical fruit off someone selling out of his van (P2P), which has it's own set of risks entirely.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by joedoc (441972)
      Though I pity your absorption into the Comcast world (which I wouldn't wish on anyone), you'll have a lot more options with DirecTV. What's so "god-awful" about it? There's very little on cable than you can't get from them, the big thing probably being some kind of on-demand thing, and their new HD receivers will have that soon.

      With satellite, you at least have a choice of packages to generally get what you want. In fact, if they don't have what you want, you might want to call them and ask about specifi
    • The relaxation of ownership rules, today, is by itself an issue that well warrants investigation. It is, plain and simple, a dangerously BAD IDEA.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.