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.'"
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.
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.
Unspecific (Score:5, Insightful)
The best Congress money can buy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
And replace it with what?
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
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:The best Congress money can buy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The best Congress money can buy (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.
Re:Ads (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 where it will have relatively little impact). Doesn't really matter to me who the spokesperson is.
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.
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.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Let this be a lesson. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you don't vote. In that case, feel free to bitch-slap yourself for not voting
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd be surprised. The complaints we have about democracy today are pretty much the same ones Aristotle [about.com] had 2500 years ago.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the purpose is to avoid giving one company too much influence over the flow of information throughout the country.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (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 for "some" of the inherent mess that comes from a nation of "consumers" and not "constituents" .
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.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (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.
Preamble to the New Constitution (Score:1, Insightful)
We the corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more profitable Union, establish Monopolies, insure domestic subservience of our customers, provide for the golden parachutes of our executive officers, subdue the General Workforce, and secure for our Boards of Directors the maximum Prosperity, do ordain and establish this the new effective Constitution for the United States of America.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, but it's hard to get through rehab when you live in a pharmacy.
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.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:3, Insightful)
Government is in the only restriction on capitalism we have.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:3, Insightful)
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.