FCC Planning Rules to Open Cable Market 70
quanticle writes "According to the New York Times, the FCC is planning to unveil new regulations for the cable market that will lower barriers to entry for independent programmers. The rules would be aimed at stopping the growth of existing cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner, while seeking to encourage more small companies to get into the field. Also, earlier this month, the FCC struck down the practice of having exclusive contracts between cable providers and apartment owners. All in all, this looks like a welcome infusion of competition into an otherwise stagnant market. The impact that this will have on the network neutrality debate is unclear."
Yes, but will they invalidate... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they really want to make it a level playing field, prohibit the ownership of both physical infrastructure and programming by the same entity. You can have one or the other, but not both. Once you own both, or a significant proportion of both (say, more than 3-5%), there is an inherent conflict of interest when the infrastructure side sets carrying rates for the programming side. If you own both, you can set the rates high enough that the programming side always loses money, and the infrastructure side makes enough money to keep the system afloat. That way, you can sell your programming costs below wholesale, knowing that at the end of the year the combined operation will make money. Outside players offering programming and paying the same infrastructure rate cannot compete, and you're back to a monopoly status.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when government regulation steps in. Look in Europe where that happened with both public transport as well as datacommunications: The company that was once fully or partially owned by the government got sold but had to allow ot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike here in the US, where I pay $60 for the only carrier available in my area for 1.5 mbps down and 128k up.
Competition is good. Maybe if you're lucky enough to live in a large enough city that has consumer choice, you can see how good it is first hand.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you pretend your situation is the same for everyone across the United States. Belgium is far smaller and more homogenous than the United States where there are plenty of places with low prices and tons of competition. Just because you choose live in the woods doesn't mean everyone in the country has your same problem.
To be accurate, what you should have written is, "Unlike
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you're forgetting wireless. If you're really just 15 miles from San Francisco, you should have several wireless internet options. Plus satellite.
Bigot (Score:2)
You seem to have a serious prejudice against non-city-dwellers.
You also seem to have formed a very bizarre belief that anyone who doesn't live in a big city lives in "the sticks."
Well, I live in a small town, 20 minutes from a small city, 1 hour from a large-ish city (Syracuse, NY). (Oh, and I don't work in either of the cities. You can work in suburban and rural areas, too! Wow!) It's not the sticks. I know people who live in the sticks, and out there you can't get broadband. Well, if your location i
Re: (Score:2)
Please cut out the flames. It is unnecessary and rude to call the GP a whiner (and likely untruthful as well, although that is hardly relevant to what I am saying).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Very strange. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very strange. (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore [youtube.com]" phrase from the movie Network comes to mind.
Contact the F.C.C. and your representatives! (and maybe neighbors too...)
I'd like to see some major changes.
When using the channel count as a partial basis for rates, don't count channels where the cable company sells advertising. Advertising sales undermine local radio and tv broadcasters which provide (or should provide) a much higher level of community service - things like local news programs and other public affairs programs that address community needs. We should not undermine the viability of community-oriented broadcasting.
Channels where the cable company gets a fee or kickback from carrying the signal (like shopping channels) should get a weigh of minus one (Consumer gets a rate cut for every one added).
I propose that cable companies not be able to charge (a station) to carry a local broadcast tv signal if the tv station is locally owned, and commits to not broadcast paid programs or infomercials (basically running under old rules with voluntary commitment to limit number of minutes of ads per hour), and run no paid political ads (only free information as public affairs programming). At the same time, requirements for lower power tv stations should be increased too - require public inspection files (and responsiveness to the LOCAL community) and the addition of Emergency Alert System hardware.
Cable companies should not be able to add on a "cable use fee" or similar to those wanting to use them as an ISP but not for television. Where I am they were (last I checked) adding $10 a month. That's a huge amount when one considers that lifeline unlimited-use telephone service is only about $6.50 a month, and the phone company is providing copper all the way back to the switching office while a cable provider merely provides a tap off of a single high-level signal cable (no dedicated cable per customer).
The cable rule changes of some years back took away the power cities had to pressure local cable operators to treat people better. Loss of local control is usually a bad thing. Locals can more easily vote out people making bad or corrupt decisions at a local level. At the federal level it is far more difficult. Those in the F.C.C. don't have elected positions. And the election process isn't without problems.
There are many good and qualified people at the F.C.C., but they apparently don't have a majority voice there currently.
When looking at corruption it often helps to follow the money. In the case of politicians, much of it (and the part they might explain away as "legal") goes to campaign spending.
See this prior discussion [slashdot.org] on doing away with paid political radio/tv/cable ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stations have also rejected political advertisements under the current rules (some blatantly slanderous etc).
There are already some rules governing free political time too. Basically they require that if a broadcaster gives free time to one candidate, others must be given equal time.
If you see an election law that would be violated, please
Heh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My senior Senator, The Honorable Mrs. Feinstein, gave a key endorsement to Mukasey and a few days later announced her support for phone company immunity.
Oh, yeah. incontrovertibly, the phone company's donation lead over the cable industry is insurmountable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that "First 100 hours" hype? She and her ilk accomplished nothing. Another wasted opportunity. No wonder people vote Republican.
Who do you trust? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, part of me is a little wary about this. I would rather it be the FTC that steps in and implements these kinds of change. The FCC has said in the past that they wish to bring their brand of censorship and anti-obscenity rules to the world of cable service, an area which is legally outside of their jurisdiction. However, if they can claim successfully that cable falls under their rule enough to implement business changes, what stops them from carrying out these other tasks?
Would it be worth it to have the monopolies of cable television broken up only to replace it with the mediocrity that is broadcast television?
Re: (Score:2)
However, part of me is a little wary about this. I would rather it be the FTC that steps in and implements these kinds of change. The FCC has said in the past that they wish to bring their brand of censorship and anti-obscenity rules to the world of cable service, an area which is legally outside of their jurisdiction. However, if they can claim successfully that cable falls under their rule enough to implement business changes, what stops them from carrying out these other tasks?
I believe that the FCC in the past hasn't been able to regulate cable content due to the limited reach of it. Back in the mid 80s when my parents first got cable there were only a small number of channels and most people just got cable because the antennae weren't picking up adequate signal. At that point the only channels on cable that were regulated by the FCC were the ones that were normally picked up over the air. The logic being that people didn't have to have cable, most of the programming was availa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree, I tend to think that they would put much higher price tags on the more popular channels, effectively costing me the same amount or more for the same channels that I use now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I hate it when a system can't remember my password (or I can't) and have to post anonymously.
I am all for anything that creates.. (Score:4, Insightful)
PTV (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, to much Family Guy.
Re: (Score:1)
Something here smells (Score:4, Interesting)
Secondly, this is a little disturbing because of some of the other subisidies in these industries, and the fact that the FCC really appears to want to treat them equally, when, in fact, they are all on very different playing fields and games.
Telco's get massive subisidies and monies to maintain "universal access" and also provide government services, such as 911. As such, it puts them ahead of the game when it comes to maintaining the physical infrastructure.
The satellite providers have a much lower cost of maintenance (short of a bird frying), because they do not have a physical plant to maintain. The local cable company had over 7,000 miles of plant in my metro area alone.
And as far as programming goes, the truth is that 98% of the cost of programming to cable companies is charged by a few providers. Disney will force several channels down the throat of a cable company by telling them they have to carry those channels if they want ESPN. And then they'll ask for an extra $.05 or $.10 per subcriber per month just to carry ESPN. When you see programming of those channels you don't watch, the reason is that generally those are incredibly cheap to carry, and don't add much cost.
So the amount a consumer ends up paying, as a percentage, for all those channels they don't care about, is pretty much irrelevant in the larger scheme of things compared to the organized system of bribery that a few media providers are using, such as Disney, HBO, TW, and GE, and the like.
Which brings us back to this attempt by the FCC. Seems to me that treating all TV signal providers, regardless of the radically different issues each faces in providing a signal is shortsighted and counterproductive. As someone else commented, this smacks of letting the Telco's provide more service more cheaply at the expense of other types of providers is just another way of abusing the system.
For full disclosure, I worked for my local Cable company for several years.
Bill
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's more like $2.00 to $3.00 for ESPN. Sports programming is by far the most expensive stuff out there these days. Add to that regional sports networks (which might be even more than ESPN), NFL/NBA and Nascar on TNT, and you quickly see why the bill is going up-up-up. At least they keep boxing and "wrestling" on pay per view and HBO.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's not just the cable companies that are bastards. It's a horrifying patchwork of deals and forced negotiations that leave customers with crappy channels they don't want to watch at rates they don't want to pay. Ther
a la carte? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point.... (Score:2)
It's not like they have to send out a cable guy to deliver my channels every month. They just flip the appropriate switches at "installation" time, and collect a check every month. They could charge, say, a $5 service fee and $2.50 per channel--maybe more for "premium" channels--and I'm sure they'd cover their costs. Under that plan, I'd pay two-thirds of what I'm paying now, and still get the channels I care abou
Who still has cable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone notice the math error? (Score:5, Funny)
Are the cablecos deliberately misleading people or is it just that they can't do math? Judging from my cable bill, both.
That explains it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Local Access Channels (Score:1)
One other aspect though is public access channels. The town makes deals where a certain amount of money goes to public access. While many hate the shows there, some can be rather good, and either way it gives people a voice, and the option to learn about tv.
The deals that the access channels are getting lately are starting to get worse and worse (many people are full time vol
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Next question? Shouldn't you be complaining to the telcos who took billions in subsidies, land apporpriation rights etc in order to provide you with these POS conections?
Really?! Finally we might get to see it! (Score:2)
Are you thinking the same thing that I am?
The Puppy Channel [thepuppychannel.com] might come to fruition!
OMFPuppies!!~1
I'll _almost_ say this is constitutional (Score:2)
I believe the Federal Government's primary goal is to protect the inherent rights of the People (not grant them, not restrain them). I believe the States, individual countries in their own design, should be prevented from passing legislation that revokes, restrains, regulates or perverts inherent rights, especially those listed in the Bill of Rights.
Municipalities are bribed by large cable and communications co
Re: (Score:2)
I read a lot of your posts, and they are usually intriguing, but, this one puzzles me. Why are you "anti-State"? You mean you are against States rights, which are, as I understand it, the major building blocks of government in the US? Can you explain why?
Re: (Score:2)
CMCSA: 19.38 -.44% (Score:2)
The 3rd qtr conference call was all about customer loss on video. Seems like a lot of people are moving to another provider for their television service (as has been the case for years) Maybe because the prices are too high?
And what the hell is going on here anyway? The FCC does nothing about cross ownership rules and actually seems to encourage consolidation of the public airwaves (while advertising revenue is going up and listener/viewership has been
Any solution but a free market one. (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest that the greatest barrier to entry for cable competitors isn't the programming, OR the copper, but the land. Everyone who wants to lay copper or glass has to go through miles of red tape just to get the rights of way, but this is silly. Where rights of way have already been granted, it makes sense to simply open that up: Pick a number of additional parallel lines that won't be too unsightly, and auction off the extra rights of way. Obviously, they would have lease-lengths, and no minimum bid, and the existing telcos would be barred from the first round of bidding on the additional cross-sectional area.
The point is that if you want competition, you're never going to have it as long as the "competition" has to buy or lease its capacity from the entrenched company they're trying to compete with.
Same issue of Times shows why it is a bad idea (Score:2)
The cable folks said "No", which is very pro-consumer. The NFL is lobbyin
Lies, damn lies, and the FCC (Score:5, Interesting)
The reality is more obvious, and certainly clear to anyone in the business of working with the FCC. This is about the triple play.
First, know this. Municipalities, by Federal and State law, cannot grant an exclusive franchise agreement (which is just a license to use local rights of way, in return for compensation to the municipality) to any telecommunications or cable provider, under any circumstances, and this has been the law for more than 20 years. To decry Cities for granting monopolies to cable companies (or phone companies) is simply ignorance of the truth. In fact, the converse is true - Cities have been trying in vain for many years to lure in other television and telco providers to no effect. The cost of entry is just too high (it takes a ton of money to build and maintain any kind of hard wire plant), and the entrenched industries have been too successful in getting doublespeak bills (like the referenced FCC action) passed.
What cities do do, is to collect useage fees (called franchise fees) from companies who use public property to make money. After all, the public has invested trillions of dollars buying rights-of-way over the years, and does deserve to be compensated when someone else wants to make (big) money using it. But of course, none of these companies likes to pay - so they work hard to get this cost eliminated, in an amazing variety of ways.
What this article ignores, is that this is the second FCC action on this matter. In the first action, the FCC acted to overrule Cities in the management of their rights-of-way, and they did so at the behest of AT&T and Verizon, who want very badly to sell Cable Television service over their own systems - including the new fiber plant they are busy laying in. And oh, by the way, the conned the FCC into screwing the cable companies blue - by relieving themselves (the telcos) of the obligations cable companies have had to pay, and still have to pay, in order to use all that valuable land to sell TV channels. So, Time Warner is placed at a massive economic disadvantage versus the Telcos. The FCC calls this "lowering the barriers to entry". I think it might more accurately be termed "lets give the Telcos their monopoly back, by killing the cable companies".
Of course, the Cable companies, being much aggrieved by the first action, immediately (along with Cities all across America who don't want to be forced to raise property taxes) filed suit. And to even the most casual observer, it is clear that the FCC violated the law and greatly exceeded their statuatory authority in passing the first measure. So, the second measure was hastily adopted, in hopes of giving the Cable companies enough of a bone, to get them out of court - after all, the cable companies enjoy screwing taxpayers too.
It's one of those deals where you have to know how things really work, in order to understand the play being done here. Not many do. That's why the FCC might get away with it. Or, the courts could side with the Cities, in which case the Telcos would have to play fair on their way in. But no one spends money like they do. That's why we have state legislatures passing bills written by Ma Bell attorneys all over the country now, and why the FCC is so eager to pass their pet rules.
One thing is certain - it isn't going to encourage competition. Neither will it encourage lower rates (monopolies just don't play that way).
It sure is interesting how easily these big companies can control the media though isn't it. It's also interesting how readily most people buy into these big lies. Makes you wonder about the rest of the "news", doesn't it?
Satellite (Score:2)
I just had to return my Tivo Series 3 because satellite doesn't have to abide with federal CabelCard laws!