FCC Cable Regulation Vote Delayed Lobbyists, Commisioners wrangle behind the scenes... Kevin Martin's FCC vote on whether to regulate the cable industry has been indefinitely delayed. Martin, eager to force cable operators to adopt "a la carte" pricing, planned to use a 1984 law to gain new regulatory authority over the cable industry. The law leaves cable open to regulation once cable service reaches 70% of the public, and 70% of those users subscribe. However, nobody is sure those numbers have been met. Even fellow Conservative commissioners seem to think that Martin may have pulled the numbers from his political nether-regions. Industry experts agree: "Is cable available to 70% of U.S. households? Yes. Do 70% of those people subscribe to cable? Absolutely not," said Bruce Leichtman of The Leichtman Group, an independent firm that researches the TV and high-speed Internet markets. "It's not even an argument here. That's what is so appalling about this." Commissioners wanted time to review the data, but complained Martin rushed them to a vote -- doing little to diminish Martin's growing reputation as an enemy of the cable sector. While Martin claims he's just fighting for lower TV prices, his asymmetrical policies stem from a political loyalty to indecency groups and ma Bell.
|
  telcolackeyThe Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | Conditions 70/70 will never be met. There is TV competition with some overbuilders (RCN), DTV, Dish and now Verizon. Back to the drawing board on the "How do I get the government into cable" | |
|  |  DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Conditions It will just take a bit more telco money to grease Congress. | |
| | | | Verizon is a "cable" company per their TV service franchising. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Sorry lackey, there is no competition.
One only need compare FIOS TV packages to cable and satellite offerings, to see that they aren't working overtime to offer anyone a better price.
Folks in apartments without south-facing balconies are generally still trapped with only one choice: cable. Even if telco has an offering, two choices does not make for competition, just a duopoly. | |
|
| | What a tool Anybody else want to hang that picture on the wall and throw darts at it? | |
| | | | Re: What a tool Already beat ya to it.  | |
| | | | |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Re: What a tool You have seen this before....but.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Since Stern went to Sirius The FCC has run out of stuff to do I guess. | |
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Since Stern went to Sirius said by DotMac4:The FCC has run out of stuff to do I guess. The FCC is always busy with creating problems where there previously weren't any. | |
| |  MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by DotMac4:The FCC has run out of stuff to do I guess. That's not true. The XM/Sirius merger is another under-the-table deal that hasn't been resolved yet. | |
| | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Since Stern went to Sirius That's true. I guess the $8 million the NAtB had spent fighting it isn't enough to bribe the FCC into killing the deal. I suppose they're waiting for the next NAtB check to arrive before making the decision. | |
| | | | MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | Re: Since Stern went to Sirius True dat! | |
|
smokarz
join:2006-07-24
West Hartford, CT | Waste of Money This is such a WASTE of taxpayers money. Why don't we make better use of our tax dollars by rolling out fiber optics across the nation and offered 100/100mb HSI for 99 cents a month to any consumer who want it. | |
| |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Waste of Money said by smokarz:This is such a WASTE of taxpayers money. Why don't we make better use of our tax dollars by rolling out fiber optics across the nation and offered 100/100mb HSI for 99 cents a month to any consumer who want it. "I'll take that for a dollar" | |
| | | |
| | What's the big deal? I want to pick and choose the stations I receive to my TV(s); so Martin's plan for letting me choose sounds great. Between standard and high def stations, there are enough that if I could choose those and put them into a 'package' I would believe that is do-able.
Pick 30, Pick 60, Pick 90, Ultimate Pick.. all sounds like great marketing plans (and, unfortunately, lottery games) the cable companies could run. I get only the signals I want, the cable companies get their money PLUS, if I'm understanding it correctly, they are using less bandwidth getting those signals into my home. Based on what I've read of Switched Digital Video that sure sounds like a plan that could work. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What's the big deal? Available bandwidth has nothing to do with the plans working.
Also, the "FCC letting me chose" and "all sound like great marketing plans" don't belong together in the same thought.
It's not the FCC's job to market for cable or even to suggest to cable (or any video provider) how to market for that matter.
Technically, cable has had the ability to offer each and every channel ala cart for years - but as you can see, there's been no desire to. The fact is that a operators won't survive is every customer picked the handful of channels they wanted to watch. It cost 'MONEY' to run a metro wide network. Even under regulation authority, operators are able to justify their expense and needs to survive and base pricing off of that need. (Same as electric and gas) If the average consumer started picking 10 channels per month, don't stop to think for one moment that 1) you'd have to still purchase the tier 1 basic, and 2) that each channel would be priced close to about $3-ush a network. They're still going to get that average $50 per customer one way or another.
With that, I'd be happy spending my $50 and getting those 50 extra channels IN CASE there is something there I want to watch - which happens often.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: What's the big deal? If they're unable to seperate their maintenance costs from their content costs then they need regulation more than ever. Obviously there'd be a flat fee to cover network maintenance, so that if you ordered zero channels you'd still be paying $20's or so.
The price per channel would be whatever the content providers choose that maximizes their ad revenues. Instead of whatever they decide to charge Comcast, who doesn't really care because they can pass on whatever the cost is, and add their own percentage; basically meaning that the more the content providers charge, under the current system, the more Comcast makes. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What's the big deal? said by Ahrenl:If they're unable to seperate their maintenance costs from their content costs then they need regulation more than ever. Why? It's so easy to arm chair, but explain your point.
Obviously there'd be a flat fee to cover network maintenance, so that if you ordered zero channels you'd still be paying $20's or so. It ain't going to happen so it's a moot point anyway... if it worked, it would be done already.. but it don't.
(snip)Comcast, who doesn't really care because they can pass on whatever the cost is, and add their own percentage; basically meaning that the more the content providers charge, under the current system, the more Comcast makes. .. and we didn't land on the moon, right? You, like many others who feel this way, forget that there is competition. If you also knew what basic cable brings in, you'd retract that statement in a hurry - but you're going to continue to make baseless statements like this moving forward anyway.. so..
Again - all a moot point. No sense discussing it. | |
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: What's the big deal? Because it shows they don't understand their own business, and aren't fit to operate it.
It wouldn't be done if it isn't in their best interest, which I explained in my next point.
There's competition? Seriously? That's what you think? I guess there isn't much point in discussing it with you then.. | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: What's the big deal? Because "WHAT" shows they don't understand their own business? Are you ever going to bring something tangible to the conversation? Or are you going to continue with barrages of opinion and emotion?
What you're saying is that YOU don't like the way they offer the service.. they CLEARLY know their own business or they wouldn't 1) be the leader in the industry.. 2) the largest in the industry 3) be still operating outside of bankruptcy... shall I go on?
I'm glad you understand you shouldn't discuss it with me either. There IS competition.. what is DirecTV? What is Satellite? What is the Over the air service? What is FiOS in some markets, Uverse in some markets.. over builders in some markets. EVERYONE has 'access' to Dish services.. should they chose to take it is usually up to them.
If you are not going to recognize satellite as competition, then you need to go put your head back in the sand.
I refuse to even argue any points with people who base their entire notion on emotion and what THEY have defined things to be from reality. | |
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: What's the big deal? Because "what"? If they're unable to seperate their maintenance costs from their content costs then they need regulation more than ever.
Why? It's so easy to arm chair, but explain your point. Because it shows they don't understand their own business, and aren't fit to operate it. So IT would be their inability to understand the cost inputs that drive their operations
Maybe a reading comprehension class would keep your blood preasure down.
Satelite will be competition when their service offering is comparable. They can't offer data, they can't offer VOD, and they require me to screw a dish into the side of my house.
Again, I don't think there SHOULD be competition in the wireline business. But the currently regulated wireline business needs to be regulated properly.
Please spare me your emotional preaching, your tireless paragraphs of "holier than thou" are going to end up driving our cable rates up, more. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: What's the big deal? hahaha... riiight.
You still haven't stated anything factual.. still opinions. So I will conclude you don't know what you're talking about. Simply saying "they don't know how to separate their operation cost from... " (as you said) doesn't make it true. How do you know they don't or aren't separating the costs? If you don't think they don't know the cost of doing business, then you are more naive than I thought.
Let me also clue you into something else. You DO realize that there are specific rules and regulations that state exactly how a cable bill must be itemized on the bill, right?
Like I said, you don't really know what goes on in cable, much less business, if you're supporting that statement. | |
| | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: What's the big deal? Again.. reading comprehension is your friend.
It is clearly written as IF THEY'RE UNABLE TO SEPARATE.... etc. (That's a pretty desparate stretch there)
It has nothing to do with how they itemize their billing. Now you're just reaching for anything to save the argument you've lost.
Of course, I know nothing because I disagree with you, I'm probably a terrorist too. I should be wire tapped, arrested w/o a warrant, and sent down to Gitmo. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What's the big deal? No.. you're just being an idiot now.
"Of course, I know nothing because I disagree with you, I'm probably a terrorist too. I should be wire tapped, arrested w/o a warrant, and sent down to Gitmo."
Could you spare me please...
As to your post... I asked a simple question and you've given NO REAL ANSWER.. do you know what that means? You made a statement "IF THEY'RE UNABLE TO SEPARATE" that implies that they need to.. which I already said they do. ANY business has to know their costs of providing a service or product against the product itself... but like you said... reading comprehension is YOUR friend.. it's already mine.
Now.. go bother someone else. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: What's the big deal? So your question is how my original statement relates to your original? Didn't realize the misunderstanding went back that far.
This was to counter your original assertion The fact is that a operators won't survive is every customer picked the handful of channels they wanted to watch. It cost 'MONEY' to run a metro wide network. . Thus they would have separate fees, as I explained, between network costs and channel costs, and If they're unable to seperate their maintenance costs from their content costs then they need regulation more than ever. I can only assume this answers the question you haven't asked... | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What's the big deal? "Thus they would have separate fees, as I explained, between network costs and channel costs,"
To which I stated that they are legally required to bill in a specific way on the statements and can't sell their service that way.. they can't itemize out the network charge from the plant charge. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: What's the big deal? Ok, and we're discussing how to change the regulation, no? | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What's the big deal? not in this branch of the thread... | |
|
| | i'm for 'a la carte' i'm all for a 'a la carte' picking of channels, even picking certain groups (maybe a sports package, entertainment, news, movies,etc.) would be great for me. i'm wasting my money on digital cable, but literally 98% of time is watching one of five channels.
i remember a news item on someone complaining that channels would disappear if a la carte is implemented, which is a real concern, but how much of a concern/problem that is, is not known for certain. i say implement a temporary 'a la carte' channel in selection scheme in various regions across the US, or even a massive poll of cable subscribers. this way everyone can see if 'a la carte' works or fails miserably.
seems like most of the talk is pure speculation with nothing to back it up | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: i'm for 'a la carte' It's not a matter of public opinion.. it's a matter of financial stability and if the industry could support that method.
If CABLE wanted to do this, which they don't, they would have a while ago and ONLY if the NETWORKS would allow it. Remember, in MOST cases, the carriers are just that.. they don't own many of the networks they carry. Cable and Satellite is the customer of the network just as you are the customer of the carrier. The real issue starts with the networks not wanting this.
Also, the FCC, or government in general, is not like business. They are not in the business of experimenting with anything. They talk, they study, they enact, it becomes law. If it fails, it will usually takes a long time to back out of it. Unlike business which does have the pleasure of 'trying things out'...
I do agree with you, however, that if there was ever going to be any more 'choice' passed on to the consumer, it would be in the form of genre tiers. Other than a forced upgrade path to higher tiers, which is business / marketing 101, I've never understood why they put some of the networks in the tiers they do in the first place.
What makes more sense, as you said, is to tier the programming together by genre.. all the news, children, family, sports, etc. In THAT situation, I think you'd give the consumer more control/choice while being able to maintain a needed level of revenue to run the company.
One thing that is for sure is that while more choice WILL wind up int he hands of the consumer, eventually, it won't be one that dramatically reduces the monthly bill of the subscriber.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | I'm for a la carte too but the right way to do it is by Congress passing a law that effects both content providers and cable companies. Despite all the naysayers a la carte would not cause content providers or cable companies to go broke nor cause the world to end. It would just give cable consumers another choice. | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit |  FCC vote on cable scrapped
Mr. Martin said the report as it stands would be withdrawn, and that he is now trying to find support for an alternative that would compel cable operators to provide data to the FCC about their market share.
In what analysts say was an embarrassing climb-down for Mr. Martin, the move is effectively an admission that the report he backed will be scrapped.
Public interest groups, which had been strongly pushing for the report, said that the apparent defeat would mean that Mr. Martin's efforts to attempt to add more regulation to the cable industry would be forced to end.
"Martin's cable agenda is certainly dead for the near term," said Harold Feld, senior vice president with Media Access Project, a public interest group. "The real question is whether he will now be seen as a lame duck chairman." Mr. Feld's group had been aggressively lobbying for the change, and he admitted he was disappointed that Mr. Martin had been unable to convince a majority of commissioners.
Analysts said analysis based on data provided by the companies themselves would be unlikely to make Mr. Martin's case for him.
"As the commission gathers more data from the industry directly, I don't think the 70/70 threshold will be triggered," said Afzaal Akhtar, a partner with IBB Consulting.
A separate proposal that would have drastically reduced the rates that cable operators can charge groups for access to spare channels has also failed to be approved by commissioners. Mr. Martin said he "wasn't sure" whether that proposal had the requisite support. This would have also created an arbitration scheme to settle disputes between cable companies and independent programmers.
For cable, the disarray at the FCC is definitely a reason to celebrate. --
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|  NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
4 edits | Irony of 70 / 70 and A La Carte by Regulation Requirement
So to regulate cable and require a la carte service 70 percent of homes have to have access to cable and of those 70 percent have to be cable subscribers.
However many of those who would subscribe do NOT because the offered packages are crammed with channels they do not want that run the price up beyond the benefit. There by reducing the percentage of subscribers and reducing the ability of FCC to regulate and require a la carte that the people want and would subscribe to if offered.
So now we know the true reason cable companies do not offer a la carte is to remain below the 70/70 and thus thwart FCC regulation.
Personally I think the FCC and DOJ should file a class action suite against the cable companies and content providers on behalf of customers / consumers being defraded by illegal product tying.
| |
|
| |
|
|
