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.
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
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: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
you are uneducated! (Score:2, Informative)
Ba-dum-bum! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, Congress cuts th
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.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
And replace it with what?
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.
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)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, but it's hard to get through rehab when you live in a pharmacy.
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: (Score:2)
It's amazing how much money people can accumulate if they exercise a bit of self-control
You'll brook no argument from me. Two and a half years ago I was forced into Chapter 7 due to events beyond my control (medical bills) combined with stupid decisions on my part. Going through bankruptcy taught me the value of budgeting and living within my means -- now I have three months of liquid savings, some fairly liquid investments (CDs) and thousands of dollars in my 403(b) plan.
Cell phone? Don't have. Newest, latest, blingiest PC? Nope. 18 different electronic devices? Nada.
I have the cell phone, but it's a no-frills model [t-mobile.com] and I'm with the cheapest provider out there. I don't have a la
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
True and I don't care. One of my favorite things to say when I go out to yard sales is along the lines, "The economy would come to a screeching halt if people stopped by all this crap." Which of course is true. The only reason the economy keeps growing is because of people buying things they don't need. How many Billy Bass were sold when it came out?
I'm not saying people shouldn't buy things they don't need, we all need divers
Re: (Score:2)
How many Billy Bass were sold when it came out
What amuses me more then that is the people willing to pay extreme amounts of money to be the first adopters of something. The iphone comes to mind.... an even more extreme example is all the people who paid $100-$200 (or more) above retail price to get a Wii when the retailers were out of stock around Christmas time.
Hell, right there is an amusing thought. Various pundits love to complain about the "War on Christmas". I've always thought of the "War on Christmas" being less about retailers saying "H
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can be like me and game the system. All those 0% credit offers than swam about? I took every one of them and used them to buy anything I needed. Doing so allowed me to pay off my cars, student loans, and anything else with interest. Now I have fantastic credit, look like a 'good consumer' to the lending agencies and was able to secure a new home loan at a great rate with zero down (even in this market). Getting a home gets me a tax write off, money from the builder, state, county, and city (free mone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the year i use my tax return to either put some money aside
If you are getting a large enough refund (my rule of thumb is anything >$100) then you should really adjust your withholding. A friend of mine is so happy each year to get a $1,500 refund. She was less amused when I pointed out that translates into almost $30/week that she would have had throughout the year for expenses and savings.
I also save all my change. 3-4 times a year i take it to a coinstar machine. sure they take 10% but I still end up with an extra $150-$200 a year at christmas time to buy gifts with.
Some of those machines will waive that surcharge if you purchase gift certificates instead of cash redemption. If they carry gift certificates for any places where y
Re: (Score:2)
50% off list is paying too much. A good price is more like 70%. Amazon is famous for their Calphalon "Friday Sale" -- and those prices are really what they should be all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I got the ones in the Calphalon One line, both infused anodized and no
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yes, "a regulated economy". I've seen it tried. Most years of my life were spent in an economy regulated by GOSPLAN [wikipedia.org]. Even if we leave the fundamental human rights issues aside for a second, it was just terribly inefficient!
Huge volumes can be fill
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cash Cow Concerns, do not confuse .... (Score:2)
but in the USA
in a politically correct manor turning lies to pseudo-truth, faux-truth
to reality, and prophet-profits into gods. Example: GBA stands for
"God Bless America" and was used to make GBA stand for
"George Bush's American".
!HAVEFUN!
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Too difficult a concept yet.
Remember the Connection Machine failed, parallel programming has not advanced much since (IMHO), and you want a self adapting social network (contrasted to a tree)?
All the best (sincerely). Hopefully technology/biosciences advances enough to bestow you longevity.
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anarchy, defined as "everybody out for themselves but due to an "invisible hand" effect working together towards the same end" has the same problem as Communism/Socialism.
If someone decides NOT to play by the same rules as everyone else, they have an advantage (even if only temporarily) in the system.
If it's anarchy in the classical sense, it just devolves (rapidly) into absolute tyranny as a segment of the population will subjugate others.
Sorry, but NUCK THAT FOISE!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government is in the only restriction on capitalism we have.
Re: (Score:2)
If you only want to live a free life, and enjoy the things nature gives you, Anarchy is perfect.
If you only want things the free market can give you, Libertarianism is perfect. (and the free market can give most things that people want. I'm far to realistic to think it can deliver everything.)
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.
Re:Cash Cow Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's probably how 'voting it in' would work, too.
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: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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it might. well not 'magically' but it gives room from another company to try and set up shop, and competition is good for you. Someone might have a better business lan, or want to bring you a better value. Possible be nimble enough to bring you newer technology faster instead of waiting for Time Warner to update it's internal systems.
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...
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Again, just another monopoly.
And there are lots of "not for profit" corporations out there that don't rake in the cash...they pay people to do it for them...
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a better idea or are you just a professional nay-sayer? If you have a better idea I'm all ears because I recall saying that it would never happen and I'm not even sure it'd be a good idea anyway.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Replace capitalism and corporatism and I'll agree with you. The corporations with all the rights and none of the limitations or moral compunctions of actual citizens, created along with government schools at the turn of the 20th century, have given real capitalism a bad name.
However, don't expect me to support efforts to give yet more unconstitutional power to the mo
Chain Chain Chain / Chain of FOOLS! (Score:2)
Where does the madness end!?
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:2)
Given that, then the concept of "the internet" resolves to the physical layer: the backbones and T3's and sw
Re: (Score:2)
POTS has long been considered to be something akin to a necessity of life ... and it's doubtful that internet access will be given the same "essential" status as POTS
It's only doubtful if we don't fight for it to be given that status. I would make the argument that cellular phones should be treated the same as POTS. Ditto for the internet. Both are virtual necessities for large segments of the population, yet neither have the same protections in place as other essential services (like POTS, electric/gas or water).
the backbones and T3's and switchers and NICs that IP needs in order to a place to exist and travel across. And each of those blinky lights is owned by someone who has all the rights that that ownership implies, which include the right to try to extract as large a profit as you legally can from your property.
And the public has a right to demand (through our elected representatives) regulation of that property when said owners try to leverage it to maximiz
Re: (Score:2)
The wealthy rule the poor. Get used to it.
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:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
TFA says (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, what issue has the FCC stood up for consumers for? I can't name any that come to mind.
The best Congress money can buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best Congress money can buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the new one with all the Marx in it is much better. But Ron Paul will fix that, too, right? After all, he's the one that can determine the budgets, the regulatory atmosphere, and whatnot. Oh, right, that's congress. But at least he's the right man for telling foreign allies that they're not "adult" enough. Way to win back that international respect he's pining away for! Yeesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, remind me again how well Rome did after they outsourced their military, and bought all that bread and circuses stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, and neither did theirs. A thriving economy depends on stability, and an atmosphere in which someone can consider their vote, or the pouring of their life savings into starting an economy-boosting business, to not be at the mercy of neighboring dictators that hand cash to medieval-minded religious terrorists or worse. An economic landscape in which it's possible for poorer people to a
Re: (Score:2)
Presuming you can make a good case for simply not needing a ready, experienced military, and can find half of that budget to be simply unecessary, why would you presume that government spending and entitlements are the best way to use it? How about simply cutting taxes? Or are you saying that the Nancy Pelosi is better at appointing committee members to lead budget panels that are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just thought you should know.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Investigations are not really about corruption (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Congress can elevate issues of policy/culture into the media when conducting an "investigation." Whether about steroids or blowjobs or whether the family network can have an a la carte anti-abortion show.
2) Senators and Reps can get an ass-ton of sound bites out to interested parties--citizens, corporations, and their monied representatives (lobbyists, family groups, net neutrality fol
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you don't vote. In that case, feel free to bitch-slap yourself for not voting
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:2)
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
Hun? (Score:2)
It's about time (Score:2)
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)