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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Saget's roast was eminently funnier and more watchable than Shatner's
Isn't that rather like comparing horse shit with cow shit?
The FCC is just trying to do for television what TSA did for aviation.
Why do cosmotarians insist on using efficiency arguments to try to convince people? An example is:
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
Does this thread count as pre-Godwinned?
Kevin Martin is a Republican, appointed by a Republican.
And that prevents him from being a lefty lib how?
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.
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.
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.
LOL, Just what the FCC needs, more teeth. Gimme a break!
RD
http://www.decrypt.net.tc
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
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.
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.
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*
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.
Warren,
Be fair, now. Channel 2 is jumping jacks until at least 10am.
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.
Cocksucker!
Be fair, now. Channel 2 is jumping jacks until at least 10am.
I though WGBH did telethons until 6PM, when Mystery reruns come on.
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.
McCain? Who the hell knows what he would do.
Attach tinfoil to the rabbit ears in hope of getting better reception.
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?
Metal Messiah,
I like your proposal.
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?
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?
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.
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.
...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.
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.
Jim Bob,
What does Comcast charge you for TV-less internet service?
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.
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.
R2K,
About $55. I use their upgraded 8Mb/s downstream internet service, a speed which their competitor in this area doesn't offer.
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:
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.
In fairness, however, some lefties are also fond of content regulation as well, for different goals (see Gore, Al).
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?
Grrr...
Are you fucking with us?
# 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?
# 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.
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.)
Affiliate Marketing On The Internet
Affiliate Marketing is a performance based sales technique used by companies to expand their reach into the internet at low costs. This commission based program allows affiliate marketers to place ads on their websites or other advertising efforts such as email distribution in exchange for payment of a small commission when a sale results.
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com
You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want.