Slashdot Log In
Congress To Investigate FCC
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:05 AM
from the so-there dept.
from the so-there dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: FCC To investigate Comcast Bittorrent Meddling 196 comments
An anonymous reader writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday that the commission will investigate complaints that Comcast actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online. A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency in November to stop Comcast from discriminating against certain types of data and to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber. While known for months in tech circles, the issue wasn't given broad attention until an Associated Press report last year, in which reporters tested and verified the data blocking."
[+]
Congress Turns Up The Heat on FCC's Chairman 148 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps this is just a remedial course on how to milk your cash cows [comcast.com].
Every so often congress has to look like it's investigating something when a source of income is threatened [cnn.com]. Is anything ever done about it? Not really [wikipedia.org].
But magically, without fail, the citizen is screwed in the end. Congress just wants to make sure some of that money ends up back at the top.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference here is that the Congress controls the FCC's budget, whereas it has essentially no control over Microsoft or the oil industry. Only the FTC can really do anything to Microsoft/Big Oil directly, so there is a dilution of congressional oversight. Yes, congress having a hearing with oil execs or with microsoft is more for show. If they wanted to achieve anything in those two arenas, they would haul FTC folks in and say, "Why are you letting oil/microsoft fleece the public?"
With government agencies, though, Congress really does wield power. That power is called the budget. The Congress can, and hopefully will, fund portions of the FCC that are more to its liking, and not approve portions of the FCC's budget that it does not agree with (for example, budget line item 1643: Chairman's Salary? Yeah, we don't like how high that's gotten, we'll only approve this much).
Some day, I hope that democracy starts working again...let's see if this is a start?
Reid.out
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's hope nothing comes of this, because if there are major changes, it won't benefit us.
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Informative)
In the article, the megacorps quotation is written quite separately from the pending Congressional action. There is no indication in the news story exactly why the congresscritters are upset with the FCC.
The Reuter's and AP wire stories (Reuter's story here: link [reuters.com])detailing the letter hint that Congress is displeased with the FCC because the FCC is not allowing the public enough to comment on decisions, and that they are concerned with FCC DEREGULATION over big media. Still, this reasoning is speculative on Reuter's part and we can't really know why the letter is sent and why the Congress wants to meet with the FCC. My point is this: the letter says nothing about letting Comcast off the hook, nothing about deregulating cable, or any other such conspiracy theory that everyone is dreaming up. That big media, even, is complaining about the FCC is purely speculative vis-a-vis the reasoning behind the letter being sent out. Big media may very well be complaining more when this is all over.
That said, there is a strong current that this Congress is upset about things like short public notice and loosening grip on big media (from the Reuter's article above). I'll hope for the best for now, and will try not to add to political distrust when it is unfounded...I think we've had enough of that over the years...
Reid.out
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Congress to FCC: "Hello there FCC, we need to talk. Oh, ignore the bulges in my pockets, that's just bribe cash from Comcast."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Great idea. Too bad it'll never work. Roughly translated, the phrase "Who will guard the guardians?" comes to mind. The problem isn't new, it goes all the way back to and past Rome. How do you regulate a ruling class that intends on 'policing' itself? You can't. A solution [gutenberg.org] is known, but again, it'll never be implemented, for obvious reasons.
And for what it's worth, I kinda LIKE Piper's solution.
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
And replace it with what?
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
A regulated economy that balances the benefits of the free market (innovation, economic growth, job creation, etc) with the legitimate concerns of the population about abuses of that market (monopolies, shareholder protection, environmental protection etc).
I look at the corporate world as it exists now and I'm utterly disgusted. The message of the last 10-15 years seems to be "consume, consume, consume". No consideration is given towards stupid questions like "Can we afford it?" or "Is this sustainable". It's all about consumption and short-term profits. And they aren't even limiting themselves to just screwing over customers and the public anymore -- they are screwing over their own shareholders with some of these policies. Meanwhile the CEOs get golden parachutes worth tens of millions, regardless of the shape of the company after they leave it.
Hell, look at the recent stuff going on with the economy. Everything I've heard and read says that the economy is going south, unless people spend and consume. No consideration is given towards "Can people afford it?" If our economy is completely dependent upon deficit spending (both at the individual level AND the Governmental level) then it probably deserves to be cut down to size. Credit cards and Governmental Debt are not investments for the future.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not to say the problems you describe do not exist; they just aren't caused by capitalism.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that, i mean ultimately we have the choice of what to buy and how to spend our money, but when you are deluged day in and day out, in every from of un-avoidable media, that what you have is not good enough, all you need is more, and ways to get this stuff without having to save for it, then maybe capitialism IS to blame in some part at the very least.
Corporations have more too much control in our lives and government to not blame them
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't buy things (as someone below your comment has said) if you don't need them. Or, you might be interested in trying what these folks [sfgate.com] set out to do [goodmagazine.com].
I won't say I've gone anywhere near as far as these folks have done (I just picked up three Calphalon pans which were at least 50% off regular price as replacements), but as a rule, I don't buy something unless I absolutely need it. Cell phone? Don't have. Newest, latest, blingiest PC? Nope. 18 different electronic devices? Nada.
It's amazing how much money people can accumulate if they exercise a bit of self-control. I mean supposedly we're the smartest animals on this ball of rock, dirt and water. How about we use some of that intelligence.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government is in the only restriction on capitalism we have.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't vote it out. The warlord who comes out victorious in the ensuing battle for power will end up abolishing the state of anarchy.
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedoms have no inherent meaning without an authority (even the physical capacity of other people to force you to do their will counts as authority) to exercise them against, and no freedom can exist without an authority to enforce that freedom. These can be one and the same authority (the State itself enforces most of your freedoms against the State), but other people are, basically by definition, not one and the same, they are many and varied. Without an authority over all of you to keep you honest and decent to each other, you have no redress for the wrongs other people might do to you. Any system of redress capable of enforcing its decrees would amount to a State.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
...until somebody else's "free life" comes at the expense of your own wellbeing. Then you're fucked.
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I'm all for consumer protection laws and regulation, but with regards to the cable ownership rules I fail to see how they help me.
My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) of the issue at hand is that the FCC wants to limit cable ownership to a percentage of the population, i.e: nobody can own more then 40% of the cable subscribers in the United States.
That's all well and good in theory, but how the hell does it help me? That regulation isn't going to magically encourage another cable company to set up shop in my Time Warner dominated area. As long as the cable companies have local monopolies I'm sure they will see no reason not to continue to raise prices and screw their customers.
More meaningful reform would be to separate the physical layer from the service. One neutral not-for-profit entity owns the fiber/copper/coax and leases it to whomever is interested in providing service. It will never happen but I'm at a loss for how else you'd encourage local competition for the last mile, at least with regards to non-wireless technology.
Parent
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree wholeheartedly. In our modern world the internet is as vital to the nation as its roadways. And just like how we don't have our roads privately owned and charging users for the privilege of driving on them, we all pitch into their expansion and maintenance via taxes. So the same we must do for our network infrastructure. The government needs to own the airwaves and the networks, and tax money must go towards supporting them.
More immediately however, we need to really bust the telco/cablecos' balls for collusion. There is absolutely no way cellular and land-broadband rates need to stay at their current state. There is absolutely and obvious collusion going on here, and we need to get them for it.
Here in Canada we've recently launched a governmental investigation into price fixing of chocolate. This is laughable. Here we are going after confectioners, when it is patently obvious that gas stations, telephone companies, and a whole slew of much-more-important vendors are doing the same, and gouging at even worse margins! But I suppose the chocolate industry doesn't buy enough politicians to avoid their wrath...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't filling a need, only a want. Let the cable company charge as much as they can get. If the people don't like it, they can read the newspaper.
The internet is slightly more complicated, as it basically is a "need" in this day in age.
Wait, so you first say that the cable companies are filling a "want", not a "need", then you turn around and admit that the internet is a "need".
Where the hell do you think a lot of people obtain their internet access from? The series of tubes? For many cable internet is the only choice. Some have DSL as second option. A small handful are lucky enough to have a WISP or local DSL provider as a third option.
ah-oh (Score:2, Insightful)
This make me feel nervous, because if they start monitoring the internet all the stuff we like on it will be gone.
Re: (Score:2)
This make me feel nervous, because if they start monitoring the internet all the stuff we like on it will be gone.
It will also be gone if we let the telcos and cable cos have free rein to do whatever the hell they want. When content providers get charged twice (once for their net connection, once for communicating with me) for delivering that content and the service providers are allowed to do whatever they want with my traffic (including man-in-the-middle attacks when they don't like what I'm doing) then the internet as we know it is truly dead.
At least we theoretically have control over the FCC through our elect
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ham Radio Operators have watched the FCC for decades. And well they should; Whenever that board sits in their awsome pontification, Hams loose just a little more spectrum. Radio has been distributed in direct relation to the money distributed. Internet will follow this well worn government path. If you want a good lesson on how
Re: (Score:3)
My shoes are loose. I have a loose tooth. There's a dog running loose in the street
Lose: Lose is a verb that means to suffer the loss of, to miss.
I win, you lose. Don't lose your keys. I never lose bets.
"Couldn't be more welcome" (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably true.
They probably don't like the way the FCC is regulating them, so a few "campaign contributions" later, their bought-and-paid-for, em, concerned Representatives and Senators just "happen" to investigate the FCC.
When are Pelosi and Reid getting around to earmark reform, anyway? Or will they be too damn busy investigating steroid use in baseball?
Meh, no wonder their approval rating is half of W's.
Unspecific (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unspecific (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
TFA says (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The best Congress money can buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best Congress money can buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally do not want the Theocracy the Republicans are trying to create.
Contrary to the Theocrat's propaganda; this is not a christian nation. Seperation of church and state are written into law.
The news couldn't be more welcome ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about that. In a recent action [tmcnet.com], the FCC gave away the store to "the industries that the FCC regulates". In spite of overwhelming outcry from consumers, the FCC handed industry what they wanted.
That's Great (Score:5, Funny)
Ads (Score:5, Insightful)
That's good, but I'd like to see them work on fixing advertising. I'm of the opinion that we should go back to the old stance (80s or so?) that drugs shouldn't be able to be advertised on TV. I think that would help quite a bit with healthcare costs. But I'd also like them to investigate the ads we have now. I remember reading something in the last week or so that someone was pushing them to do that over the Lipitor ads with Dr. Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the artificial heart, testifying about how good Lipitor is.
The problem is that he has never had a license to practice medicine in the US. He dropped out of a US medical school because of his grades and got his degree from a school outside this country. It's really questionable that he is qualified to talk about the drug.
I wish they'd work on advertising. So much of it is so blatantly wrong. Just deal with a few of the worst offenders, and the rest will self-correct before they get investigated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what if Jarvik were licensed in the U.S.? He still wouldn't be speaking to an individual's case, and he'd still be shilling for the drug's maker. Those are the basic problems with all direct-to-consumer drug ads (which may say "your doctor will decide", but bury that whe
Let's connect the dots (Score:2)
Coincidence? (Score:2)
That would explain Comcast's rate hikes - congressmen salaries and demands go up every six months, too.
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Regulating the Cable industry (ok, that's a bad one if it falls under censorship. But they do have the power to force a la carte services, which would be a good thing for most people).
2) Putting conditions on the 700Mhz auction (which is a good thing overall)
3) Net neutrality (The FCC is actually for net neutrality, to the detriment of internet providers).
So 2/3 are clearly meant to help consumers, and the other one could help consumers (although it is just as likely to harm us).
So once again it looks like the industry paid off the right Congressmen to shake down a government commission just before it actually did something right.
Let this be a lesson. (Score:3, Funny)
Unless you don't vote. In that case, feel free to bitch-slap the rest of us.
your elected officals (Score:3, Informative)
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
14 reublicans
18 democrats
1 vacancy
and the chairman is a democrat
You can see all their names and voting records http://energycommerce.house.gov/Subcommittees/telint.shtml [house.gov] Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
But first... (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC's power has grown far beyond it's original intention (regulating airwaves frequencies in the U.S.). Apparently they only do things in response to complaints. Or at least that's how it once was. But the really fucked up thing is 99% of complaints come from one organization [arstechnica.com].
So essentially this one single organization is responsible for most of the - detrimental in my opinion - changes to what is allowed to be broadcast or not.
It's not the popular decision. People just think it is because this one fucked up organization has such broad powers and people just assume that it's the popular opinion. It is not.
The organization responsible for all this? The Parent's Television Council [parentstv.org]. The sick thing is they're proud to be the nation's most influential advocacy organization [parentstv.org] yet have barely a million members [parentstv.org]. That's right one million up tight fucks are responsible for 99.8-99.9% of all FCC regulation that affects 303 million people [census.gov].
And the FCC allows it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So let's start a drive to file complaints with the FCC that we don't hear enough profanity during dinnertime, and that we don't see enough T&A over the breakfast table during the morning news.
Maybe if we get enough complaints
Did the summary writer read the article? (Score:3, Informative)
The article says Congress is investigating the FCC for being too close to the industries they are regulating, giving them an inside track to getting favorable decisions.
It goes on to say that the companies are pissed off because of the decisions they do make. What that demonstrates is that the companies would like even more influence over the decisions the FCC takes. It does not mean that Congress is investigating the FCC to make it so.
If the article is to be believed, Congress wants to make it harder for the companies to manipulate the FCC, not easier. If so, the companies will not be rejoicing over Congress's actions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The One Sure Way (Score:4, Informative)