Congress To Investigate FCC 252
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.'"
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.
you are uneducated! (Score:2, Informative)
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
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:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:2, Informative)
It doesn't affect your choice of cable provider, but it DOES affect your choices for content. Cable companies must form agreements with networks and other content providers to carry the content. If one cable company becomes dominant nationwide, THEY get to decide what you can watch.
Right now, if I have some new channel, I need to go to the cable company and convince them to carry it. With a number of different companies as markets, I have a better chance of getting my content aired in at least some markets. If it is good, and gets traction, people in other markets will ask their cable company why they don't carry it. But if there are only 1 or 2 dominant providers nationwide, I only have 1 or 2 chances, so the odds are much longer.
Also, being dominant gives a cable company a huge say over the content in their existing networks. Lets say the Dems get in power and both branches of Congress and the Executive are controlled by Democrats. And lets say Comcast is allowed to gain, say, 50% of the market. A few words are whispered in a few ears, and *poof* - where the hell did Fox News go? Comcast will say it's a business decision, because Fox News, despite the the impression one gets from rantings around here, really doesn't have good Nielson ratings. So Comcast may lose a few subscribers to Dish Network. And what's Murdoch going to do - pull the rest of his channels? Blow away 1/2 his corporate advertising revenue? No, he'll swallow hard because Comcast now has him by the balls. And I know everyone here hates Fox, but do we really want to accept a situation where a news outlet can get silenced by corporations? We go spasmodic when someone says "Boo!" to a blogger!
There have already been rumblings of these disputes - Disney wanted to sell a package with a whole bunch of 3rd rate channels with ABC and Disney Channel. The cable company didn't want to be forced to take filler channels. Disney won that one, but would they win against a dominant nationwide cable company?
Another one is the dispute between Peter Angelos, owner of the Baltimore Orioles, and Comcast. Comcast sports network was broadcasting Orioles games. In exchange for "allowing" the Expos to move to Washington DC (No, I don't get it either), Angelos was granted a part of the new team's TV revenue, implemented by forming ANOTHER network. Comcast cried foul (haha) and refused to carry the new network. The local governments FREAKED, and threatened Comcast with revoking their licens if they didn't carry the games. I know Angelos is a scumbag, and MLB is full of other scumbags, but I'd rather have them being able to put pressure on my cable company, and not vice versa.
The One Sure Way (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Did the summary writer read the article? (Score:3, Informative)