Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
FCC Continues Assaults on Cable; To Invade Poland by End of Year
From The Wash Times, comments from Federal Communciations Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin, more evidence that the agency is pushing like Germany into Poland for more real estate to regulate:
"Today, consumers pay double what they paid less than a decade ago and they have fewer choices, not more, and they have to buy a bigger and bigger bundle of services if they want to get anything," Mr. Martin told editors and reporters at The Washington Times on Tuesday. "If you want to buy the Discovery Channel for your children, you have to buy a package that includes a whole bunch of channels that you don't want."
Why is he talking about cable in the first place? And why has he been pushing this stat: "Cable channels have doubled, but the average number of channels that subscribers watch has increased only from 13 to 15"?
Because Martin wants to force cable companies to offer so-called a la carte pricing, in which operators would have to offer single channels for sale. A coupla-three years ago, Tim Cavanaugh explained why de-bundling channels would hurt the Mother Angelicas of the world—the oddball small channels that pull devoted but tiny audiences only their all-forgiving God (and cable operators desperate to offer whatever might pull in an additional viewer at marginal costs) could love. His back-of-the-envelope calculations convincingly show that there's no way that the chintziest a la carte menu wouldn't cost at least the same as most basic cable packages, which offer dozens of channels (plus music).
Indeed, there's no evidence that a la carte pricing would reduce the price to the average consumer (who can always skip or de-program offending fare to begin with), but it would help get the FCC more in the mix of what's on the cable-fed tube. The agency is already trying to push its "fleeting indecency" rule on broadcast TV and radio and it's no secret that Martin would like to extend content regulation to cable and satellite services. Indeed, whenever Martin, or other FCC folks start talking, it's worth remembering that the nanny-state impulse runs through them like child-molester jokes did through last night's Comedy Central roast of Full House star Bob Saget. Here's a money quote from Martin a couple of years ago that should be remembered always:
"You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want. But why should you have to?"
I really don't want a guy who thinks like that making any decisions for me.
|8.20.08 @ 9:18AM|#
1. Even with the jokes of questionable taste, Saget's roast was
eminently funnier and more watchable than Shatner's. The latter was
simply horrible, a video trainwreck.
2. Cable TV is no scare resource, and consumers have numerous
alternatives, anyway: over-the-air programming, DVD/videocassette
rental/purchase, satellite tv (also an FCC target, alas), and
streaming video, just to name the most prominent. The FCC has no
excuse, much less any authority, to impose itself here.
3. Speaking of excuses, even broadcast radio and television have
for decades now not been the scarce resources that once justified
the establishment of the FCC. Now it is the FCC itself that is
making broadcast spectrum a scarce resource, and it is therefore
past time for at least the gatekeeper and censorial aspects of the
FCC to go away.
4. In its control over content, the FCC has always violated the
First Amendment guarantee of a free press, which, because it was
enacted after the commerce clause of the Constitution, should
properly trump that clause in all perceived legal conflicts.
|8.20.08 @ 9:21AM|#
they have fewer choices,
See, right there you know he's either lying or an idiot.
Any reason to believe that Hope 'n' Change would change this?
Because it smells like standard lefty-lib help the
children/consumers crap to me, and he's pretty much a standard
lefty lib.
McCain? Who the hell knows what he would do.
|8.20.08 @ 9:24AM|#
If the FCC is hell-bent on meddling, then they should work on
getting rid of all of the local affiliates. Or at least mandating
that they provide a clean channel of the network satellite
feed.
Not only do we get weather updates and crawls from 150 miles away
(I'm not kidding or exaggerating.) Every time there's an Amber
alert, they place it on a permanent crawl. Once they did this for
four solid days for a 16-year-old that ran off with her
boyfriend. Even when it's a little kid, the constant alerts on
the TV are stupid. I'm in my house watching TV. IF THE KIDNAPPED
KID STOPS BY THE HOUSE I'LL GIVE YOU A CALL!
/rant
Elemenope|8.20.08 @ 9:27AM|#
RCD --
Wow, an article which has nothing to do with Obama, and you manage
to bring him into it.
Good job.
--------
On an entirely different note, fuck the FCC. I hear that's a word
they don't like much.
Episiarch|8.20.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Actually, Nick, the Saget roast aired first on Sunday
(Saturday?).
This is a simple power grab by government regulators, and is
unsurprising in anything other than its tenacity. The guy really
doesn't have a leg to stand on but he's pushing hard anyway.
ed|8.20.08 @ 9:35AM|#
Saget's roast was eminently funnier and more watchable than
Shatner's
Isn't that rather like comparing horse shit with cow shit?
squarooticus|8.20.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Why do cosmotarians insist on using efficiency arguments to try
to convince people? An example is:
His back-of-the-envelope calculations convincingly show that there's no way that the chintziest a la carte menu wouldn't cost at least the same as most basic cable packages, which offer dozens of channels (plus music).
I'm sorry, but this is anything but convincing... and as
far as I am concerned, it misses the point.
Why not redefine the moral high ground by going back to the
(evidently foreign or archaic) notion that cable operators are
private companies and the thought of government telling them how to
run their businesses is no different from the thought of government
telling you what you can and can't eat?
Wait, we're losing that one too?
Way to go, libertards.
|8.20.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Any reason to believe that Hope 'n' Change would change
this? Because it smells like standard lefty-lib help the
children/consumers crap to me, and he's pretty much a standard
lefty lib.
Actually pussy whipped AlGore is a Democrat anomaly in wanting to
regulate content for teh childrenz. The Clinton years wear pretty
good as far as keeping the FCC fangless and clawless. But then
Clinton was a Democrat anomaly himself.
The Evil Corporations sucking the blood out of struggling Americans
sound bite, is probably too seductive to Obama's Hope/Change
hardon. But who knows how far it will go. Al a carte cable doesn't
carry the deep seeded fear and panic of the WAD that allows one to
spew blatant falsehoods and get away with it.
Still, too close to call.
Elemenope|8.20.08 @ 10:05AM|#
squarooticus --
It's called "arguing on their turf". A person is more likely to be
convinced by a mode of thought that they already employ.
But sure, if you want to take the moral high ground and convince no
one but the choir, be my guest.
|8.20.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Because it smells like standard lefty-lib help the
children/consumers crap to me, and he's pretty much a standard
lefty lib.
RCD,
Kevin Martin is a Republican, appointed by a Republican. Not to
mention that Republicans have no problems using censorship to block
out things they think are "obscene".
New World Dan|8.20.08 @ 10:16AM|#
I still want a la carte cable. There's no reason that I should have to buy the all everything package to get the friggin DIY channel. 3 TV options (Comcast, DirecTV and DishNetwork) is hardly an ideal market. A la carte pricing doesn't prevent anyone from buying the all everything package, so what's the problem?
robc|8.20.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Kevin Martin is a Republican, appointed by a
Republican.
And that prevents him from being a lefty lib how?
|8.20.08 @ 10:42AM|#
New World Dan,
1)As Tim Cavanaugh tells it, with a la carte cable there will be no
DIY channel
2)You have more options than that, including over the air (soon in
HiDef), Netflix, Downloading, and streaming content.
3)If it was a good idea the market would have already embraced it.
The problem is mandating a known bad idea.
Michael|8.20.08 @ 10:47AM|#
New World Dan, you're assuming DIY will be available in a
universe of a la carte pricing. Many niche programming channels are
subsidized by more popular channels, an ability which would be gone
if the FCC would have their way.
Think of a cable universe of just these: ESPN, MTV, HBO, CNN, WTBS,
WGN, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC (maybe), Nickelodeon, Lifetime, Disney,
USA, a handful of the Discovery channels (but dumbed down even more
than they are now), and of course, even more of the QVC, Home
Shopping Network and their ilk.
Oh, yes, and plenty of the Jesus channels.
Already, a lot of niche channels are carried on a second or third
tier by cable companies.
|8.20.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Wow, an article which has nothing to do with Obama, and you
manage to bring him into it.
Well, to be fair, I brought in McCain as well.
This is a federal agency, after all, and part of the executive
branch, no? Since when is it off limits to wonder whether our two
Masters-To-Be will support this tripe?
Kevin Martin is a Republican, appointed by a
Republican.
Which may, or may not, explain his fondness for content regulation.
This post, however, was not about content regulation, it was about
business regulation to protect the poor baby consumer, which is
mainly a lefty-lib trope.
|8.20.08 @ 10:59AM|#
LOL, Just what the FCC needs, more teeth. Gimme a break!
RD
http://www.decrypt.net.tc
The Extispicator|8.20.08 @ 11:01AM|#
I say they just give us one government channel, maybe two and that's all we get. That way, all of the content will be pre-screened and approved for general consumption. Plus, we won't waste all of that time channel surfing, so we can have extra time to volunteer or do jumping jacks in the public square
|8.20.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Which may, or may not, explain his fondness for content
regulation. This post, however, was not about content regulation,
it was about business regulation to protect the poor baby consumer,
which is mainly a lefty-lib trope.
Except that the reason that Martin is playing the "poor exploited
consumer" card is to satisfy "conservative" interest groups like
the PTC.
|8.20.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Martin continues to demonstrate his contempt for the critical
thinking faculties of other human beings. What a meddlesome scold
he is.
Speaking only for myself, however, I must say that the reason I
canceled Comcast was that there is no middle ground with any of
their packages. It's either $50 per month for 50 channels of
absolute crap, or $120 per month for all the crap, plus some
channels I actually want to watch and some HD. Now that I can get
MythBusters on iTunes, Comcast can bite me.
|8.20.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Because the world is going to satellite, cable, and online for
their viewing pleasure (how is that less choice than just the local
cable monopoly?) the FCC is worried that someone will notice the
whole friggin' commission could be replaced by 30 technically savvy
trade school grads with a quality secretary and nobody (excepting
commision employees) would be affected negatively. They fear
irrelevancy.
Every time some goverment teat sucking bureaucrat states that their
mission or powers need to be expanded/increased my default
interprtation is some petty busybody wants to increase his/her own
power and budget at the expense of taxpayers money and
freedom.
That default position rarely needs modified. When some bureaucrat
calls a press conference and states "my department is over funded
and regulates/oversees businesses and citizens choices
unnecessarily" give me a holler. That would truly be a man bites
dog story.
Gentlemen, we need to protect our phoney baloney
jobs!
*sigh*
|8.20.08 @ 11:10AM|#
I say they just give us one government channel, maybe two
and that's all we get.
In Soviet America there are only two channels. Channel one is
government propaganda. Channel two is a DHS agent telling you to
turn back to channel one.
Elemenope|8.20.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Kevin Martin is a Republican, appointed by a
Republican.
And that prevents him from being a lefty lib how?
Thus demonstrating the uselessness of the terms. I find it
generally more useful to use a biaxial analysis, one access being
economic freedom, the other being social/individual freedom. On
both axes, the Dems and the Repubs fail it consistently.
This is a federal agency, after all, and part of the executive
branch, no? Since when is it off limits to wonder whether our two
Masters-To-Be will support this tripe?
Of course it's not off-limit to wonder, but that's all it is: airy
speculation. Neither has really said anything on the issue, and
until they do it's 6 to 5 and pick 'em what they'll choose to care
about.
|8.20.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Be fair, now. Channel 2 is jumping jacks until at least
10am.
I though WGBH did telethons until 6PM, when Mystery reruns
come on.
Metal Messiah|8.20.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I'd be quite happy if cable tv, satellite tv, broadcast radio,
and the telephone companies went away, to be replaced by a single
high-bandwidth internet connection into our homes.
Television content could then be streamed directly to our
televisions, the line would double as a phone line, and radio
content would also be streamed.
Using targeted advertising, the content producers could make more
money than before, marginal programming (like Firefly and Veronica
Mars) would stand a better chance of surviving, and we wouldn't
have to pay for content we didnt' want (I've never watched ESPN
once in my entire life). You'd also have easy access to every
televised sporting event.
While there are privacy concerns with targeted advertising, I think
it would be a fair trade-off to get both more content and keep the
content I like alive.
Programs could also be streamed with "censored" and "uncensored"
versions that the viewer could choose between, so we could get
boobies and f-bombs on network television programming.
And the FCC couldn't do shit about it.
|8.20.08 @ 11:35AM|#
McCain? Who the hell knows what he would do.
Attach tinfoil to the rabbit ears in hope of getting better
reception.
|8.20.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Hey so now that Russia is talking about invading Poland, does
that get its own thread.
Or should the FCC invades Poland, and the Russia invades Poland
thread be intertwined?
Could we get Russia and the FCC to fight? And preferably both
lose?
Russ 2000|8.20.08 @ 11:49AM|#
New World Dan, you're assuming DIY will be available in a
universe of a la carte pricing. Many niche programming channels are
subsidized by more popular channels, an ability which would be gone
if the FCC would have their way.
You're wrong, Comcast breath.
In a non-subsidized universe, the programming becomes completely
on-demand and there's not only no such thing as the DIY channel,
there's no such thing as ESPN Channels. You wanna watch tonight's
baseball game? Buy it from MLB.TV. Wanna watch a do-it-yourself
show? Buy it from This Old House Productions or something.
Why hang on to the antiquated concept of cable channels?
Russ 2000|8.20.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Now that I can get MythBusters on iTunes, Comcast can bite
me.
Don't you need a provider like Comcast in order to connect to
iTunes?
New World Dan|8.20.08 @ 12:00PM|#
1)As Tim Cavanaugh tells it, with a la carte cable there
will be no DIY channel
Yeah... I don't believe that for a second.
Many niche programming channels are subsidized by more popular
channels,
Wow, there's an arguement I never thought I'd see in the Reason
blog. ROFLMAO! A La Carte is bad because then channels that no one
cares about would fail.
3)If it was a good idea the market would have already embraced
it. The problem is mandating a known bad idea.
Markets make mistakes all the time. Especially markets with high
barriers to entry. Entrenched interests are typically slow to
respond to changing demands. And finally, if this cat ever gets out
of the bag, it can't be put back in. Fear of being stuck with A La
Carte keeps anyone from offering it. ESPN fights it tooth and nail
and you can't offer basic cable without ESPN. And yes, a la carte
benefits consumers but does nothing for Comcast.
So here's a modest proposal in regulation: Let's mandate Cable A La
Carte for 2 years and then, if the market rejects it, Comcast and
DirecTV can pull the plug. Hell, I'm willing to throw some
subsidies at it to get it started. Let's do this without
regulation. We'll put out a bid for a grant to offer a la carte.
Low bid among the major players gets the money and everyone else
gets to compete against them.
|8.20.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Russ 2K,
I've had only one problem with Comcast's internet service, and they
fixed it. I honestly have no complaints about their internet
service in my area (there is a competing brand here, called
Knology, but they haven't impressed me). It's their cable service
that can bite me, because around here it stinks.
Dagny T.|8.20.08 @ 12:46PM|#
...do jumping jacks in the public square
There's also those nifty flag/marching dances the kids do. Oh! Oh!
And sweeping the steps surrounding the Leader's statue.
Russ 2000|8.20.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Wow, there's an arguement I never thought I'd see in the
Reason blog. ROFLMAO! A La Carte is bad because then channels that
no one cares about would fail.
I know. The one time Tim Cavanaugh writes something completely
boneheaded and it keeps getting linked.
Anyway, without going through a refresher course of my knowledge of
cable TV technology, there's a certain catch-22 here that's being
ignored.
Tiered packages are a product of old cable TV technology where the
cable company was technologically limited to a small number of
"blocked" areas in their spectrum/signal. Go to rural areas and you
still have lots of antiquated cable systems that can't notch out
more than a couple "blocks" of channels without a massive upgrade
in infrastructure. Those costs would get passed on to customers and
the customers would bitch to high heaven asking for price
regulation or switch to satellite (IPTV is probably not coming to
many rural areas), either way the cable operator sees increased
costs and lower revenue. I don't have any concern for cable
operators, but businesses should be burdened with dumb-ass
legislation. The real culprits here are the networks like ESPN who
require most operators to offer junk like ESPN Classic on the same
"tier" as ESPN, and charge customers additionally for it. Seems
like that's more of an FTC area than FCC.
I absolutely HATE the idea of subsidized channels, that's why I
don't have cable or satellite TV. All I really miss is a few
sports, most of which are visible at most restaurants or bars
anyway. The ability to watch 8 ball games on a screen at once
appeals to me, but not so much that I'm willing to pay MLB's asking
price for it.
|8.20.08 @ 2:41PM|#
R C Dean | August 20, 2008, 9:21am | #
"they have fewer choices,"
See, right there you know he's either lying or an idiot.
Or both.
Metal Messiah,
I'd be extremely happy with just a high bandwidth connection.
|8.20.08 @ 3:30PM|#
I'd be quite happy if cable tv, satellite tv, broadcast
radio, and the telephone companies went away, to be replaced by a
single high-bandwidth internet connection into our
homes.
I don't see why the FCC wouldn't try to regulate that on the same
basis as it does the cable/satellite connection carrying the same
content.
And seriously, folks, regulating cable/satellite to protect the
poor baby consumer is not just a fundie Trojan Horse. Its a goal of
lefty libs as well.
It looks like Obama's on
the fence on the a la carte mandate:
But the new report says consumers could receive as many as 20
channels without seeing an increase in bills and blamed the earlier
finding on faulty data it obtained from the cable industry. I do
not want to discourage diversity of programming on cable systems
and fear that a la carte regulation may do that. But given the
conflicting FCC reports, I remain open to review and discussion of
the concept.
McCain, apparently, favors
mandatory a la carte.
Edge to Obama, for now.
|8.20.08 @ 3:37PM|#
R2K,
About $55. I use their upgraded 8Mb/s downstream internet service,
a speed which their competitor in this area doesn't offer.
|8.20.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Which may, or may not, explain his fondness for content
regulation. This post, however, was not about content regulation,
it was about business regulation to protect the poor baby consumer,
which is mainly a lefty-lib trope.
Actually it's about both. Did you miss this part:
You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want. But why should you have to?
Not to mention, righties have no problem using regulation to
protect the poor baby consumer. They just care about different
products and use different language around it.
|8.20.08 @ 4:40PM|#
In fairness, however, some lefties are also fond of content regulation as well, for different goals (see Gore, Al).
|8.20.08 @ 4:58PM|#
It looks like Obama's on the fence on the a la carte
mandate:
But the new report says consumers could receive as many as 20
channels without seeing an increase in bills and blamed the earlier
finding on faulty data it obtained from the cable industry. I do
not want to discourage diversity of programming on cable systems
and fear that a la carte regulation may do that. But given the
conflicting FCC reports, I remain open to review and discussion of
the concept.
McCain, apparently, favors mandatory a la carte.
What I find remarkable is that this is something that a
presidential candidate parses this as important enough to comment
on as a campaign issue.
An a'la carte cable campaign plank? Are fucking with us?
|8.20.08 @ 7:12PM|#
# ed | August 20, 2008, 9:35am | #
## Saget's roast was eminently funnier
## and more watchable than Shatner's
# Isn't that rather like comparing
# horse shit with cow shit?
Two comments:
1. Are you saying that horse shit is one or two orders of magnitude
better or worse than cow shit? Because that was the level of
difference between Saget's and Shatner's Roasts. It may be
"comparative rotten" but there's "rotten," and then there is
"drippingly, fetidly, glow-in-the-dark putrid."
2. People gladly and gratefully choose between a Douche and a Turd
Sandwich all the time, or haven't you been watching the OTHER
infamous Comedy Central show that talks about such things?
|8.20.08 @ 7:23PM|#
# Metal Messiah | August 20, 2008, 11:27am | #
# I'd be quite happy if cable tv,
# satellite tv, broadcast radio,
# and the telephone companies went
# away, to be replaced by a single
# high-bandwidth internet connection
# into our homes.
# Television content could then be
# streamed directly to our televisions,
# the line would double as a phone
# line, and radio content would also be
# streamed.
# ...
# And the FCC couldn't do shit about it.
Plus, all of your favorite TV and radio shows, which would
henceforth be delivered only "on demand," could be encrypted far
more effectively than is now possible via cable tv, so that the
overwhelming majority of people couldn't access them without paying
in advance. Not really an advantage, I suppose, but I'm confident
that Comcast et. al. can spin it into a positive feature.
Czar|8.21.08 @ 9:22PM|#
It's really all pointless anyway since a computer with high
speed internet has already made television obsolete. Give it
another ten years and there won't be anyone but grayhairs watching
the tube anyway.
(From the generation who never bothered with a land line and
currently just torrents anything not offered for limited-commercial
download.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245