Senators to Block FCC Funding if Martin Won’t Delay Vote Martin says he's going forward anyway Tipped by Romney2012 
FCC Chief Kevin Martin had a lot of questions to answer this week when he faced a Senate committee in a three hour hearing. Issues that were brought up included the FCC’s failure to educate the public about the digital TV transition to which Martin responded that the FCC was doing a terrific job considering that it had received no funding from the Senate to assist with the education. The FCC may be looking at another loss of funding if Martin doesn’t cave on the main issue addressed at the hearing. The senators were asking that Martin delay a vote planned for December 18th regarding changing cross-ownership media rules. Martin stated that he wouldn’t delay the vote despite Senate concerns that he is rushing ahead without concern for the impact of the change. Knowing that the money is where the power is, Senators Kerry and Obama announced that if Martin doesn’t delay the vote, they will block funding to prevent implementation of the new rule. These problems have increased the discontent amongst members of the FCC. Martin says that he expects for there to be tension within the group since he is forcing them to consider controversial issues.
|
 | | Get rid of the funding... And hopefully never give it back... the FCC just needs to go away. They are an outdated entity. A simple entity for regulating interfering signals is all that is needed. | |
|  | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Get rid of the funding... said by grandpinaple:And hopefully never give it back... the FCC just needs to go away. They are an outdated entity. A simple entity for regulating interfering signals is all that is needed. I disagree, and I think that the cross ownership rules are a good thing. There's already too much media consolidation as it is, and what's more, the arguments put forth by the newspapers as to why they need to be able to own radio and TV stations in the same markets (and vice versa) don't make any sense.
The newspapers claim to be losing money, so why would a TV or radio station want to buy in? The radio stations obviously aren't making much since Clear Channel is getting rid of many of their stations, so why would newspapers want to get into that if they're already losing money?
They're basically being lying scumbags and expecting us to believe the horse shit they're feeding us. They seem to be taking their cue from another prominent sack of lying criminals. (although the media companies, by and large, aren't actually criminals like the folks they're emulating) | |
| | |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Get rid of the funding... Both groups work toward the same end of power and control, and are interrelated. No one thinks for themselves any more, their opinions are spoon fed to them. Minitrue is forming, welcome to Oceania. I used to think I was just paranoid ...
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| | |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Site Tools
Verizon Wireless
| The entire idea behind the ban is that no one company has complete control over all forms of media.
Also tiny media businesses are being absorbed by larger ones ect. So more or less it's the idea of Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch not having a lock on the entire market. | |
| | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Get rid of the funding... I get that, hence my saying I think the cross ownership rule should remain.
I don't have a huge problem with the idea of modestly sized newspaper chains (Stephens Media, who owns our local paper has never given me reason to think they shouldn't), nor of modestly sized radio or TV chains. The problem comes in when the chains grow too huge, or as you point out, the chain controls all the media outlets in a market.
I do think that enormous conglomerations of media outlets, like Time Warner, are sub-optimal to say the least. I'm all for capitalism, but like almost everything, it is only healthy in moderation. | |
| | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| said by Mike:The entire idea behind the ban is that no one company has complete control over all forms of media. Also tiny media businesses are being absorbed by larger ones ect. So more or less it's the idea of Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch not having a lock on the entire market. I agree that it is good to stop monopolizing the media, so at least we can have multiple points of view from the market. Regulating that when necessary is a good thing, however, regulations have a bad habit of being just wrong enough that they quickly get outdated (all those little imprecisions grow and multiply with time), and then they have a bad habit of not properly fixing them -- just adding more crap. So, the whole process is a mess, but at least they're attempting to prevent bad media complexes. I don't give them a free pass with my money and vested powers, but I do at least appreciate them attempting to do some good. For instance, I like being able to listen to Dr. Savage, but at the same time, I wonder what it would be like without him and furthermore what it would be like with him and more options than we have now than just him and the few we already have. (Today I tuned in and had trouble finding anything I could listen to without losing interest -- and I often try both sides of many fences.) | |
| | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Get rid of the funding... Monopolization of any industry, be it Telecom, Energy, Media, Manufacturing, Agriculture etc is always bad for the majority of people while very profitable for those who own the monopolizing entity.
The trick is balancing out the freedom of capitalism and the right to make money with the public interest of not wanting to be enslaved 
Right now, the balance is clearly tipped towards the interests of big business.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| Re: What have YOU been smoking? Um, perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote? Newspapers are not in the shitter, BTW. Their average profit margin is higher than that of the Fortune 500.
Again, I think consolidation on a large scale is a bad thing. On a small scale, not so much. | |
|
| Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | No the FCC isn't outdated. Its just they have not had any leadership there for decades that couldn't be bought. | |
| | |
 DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
4 edits | Shocking...well maybe not, after all it is the gov't It's bad if Comcast owns 30% market share but good for News Corp to buy up everything. Uh, okay Martin.
Domination of the marketplace by any company or small group of companies is bad and anyone seeing current media consolidation can see that even under current rules giant media companies are having no trouble swallowing up the marketplace. | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Re: Shocking...well maybe not, after all it is the gov't said by DotMac4:It's bad if Comcast owns 30% market share but good for News Corp to buy up everything. Uh, okay Martin. Domination of the marketplace by any company or small group of companies is bad and anyone seeing current media consolidation can see that even under current rules giant media companies are having no trouble swallowing up the marketplace. I liked the distinction someone else already made between market presense in a particular area and market presense of available areas. Also, market share, market availability, market presense, market control ... all somewhat different. For instance, if somebody has 95% market share even though they only control 2% of the market (e.g., they only have 1 of 50 local radio stations that any house can receive but 95% of the people only want to listen to that 1 station), then they ought to be able to continue to do a good job. It's when their market *control* gets too big (e.g., they have 49 of 50 local radio stations, or 2 of 3, or whatever) that things need to be fixed by the bullies (I mean the gubt). | |
|
thumbs down from:
Romney2012
|  Heckuva job Marty
| |
|  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | I hope they put this turd in his place Someone needs to underfund this jerk out of existence. | |
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| Re: I hope they put this turd in his place said by inteller:Someone needs to underfund this jerk out of existence. Out of office, anyway.  | |
| | | | | Re: I hope they put this turd in his place No, out of existence. Otherwise he'll just become another lobbyist for the Telcos. | |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| If there are good arguments for the policy, why not wait? While it's plainly obvious that this is only about ideology, if its such a good idea, why not let whoever wants to study do their studies? Are the poor media companies going to go out of business in the next 6 months?
No.
However, 6 months from now, rushing will make it look like what this really is. A Republican rushing to do things he knows he may not have the chance to do if they lose the election. Sort of like Clinton and the pardons, only dangerous for our system of government, rather than just looking inappropriate (and perhaps being so).
Comments on this subject have been about as one sided as they come, all in disapproval, except for a few from people who have something to gain, either personally or politically. | |
| Reviews:
 ·EPB Fiber Optics
·EPB Fiber Optics
·Comcast
| funding it is amazing that the people who are attempting to push this through assume that all of america can afford cable. i have some sad sad news for the FCC and the attempt to do away with analog broadcasting. that news is there are a shitload of poor people out there that can not afford foor and insurance and christmas for their familes, and they want to make you spend more money buy having to pay for digital service? kiss my ass is what i say. i hope the FCC dries up and blows away. they need to chase CBers running big fat linear amplifiers. | |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: funding You do not have to have cable. The digital signals are sent over the air (OTA) just like the analog ones. For those without Digital tuners you can get two(2) $40 vouchers for conversion of OTA digital signals for use on non digital tvs from the govt(starting in 2008). You can use the same antennas in most cases. All TVs manufactured for sale in the US since 07 (? I think that was the year) had to have digital tuners. | |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Funny Ahh our government fumbles along doing a bit of good and a bunch of bad here and there once again ... nice news.
"Why haven't you done exactly what I want you to do for me?"
"What was that?"
"Also, because of what I want, what about something else you're supposed to be doing anyway?"
"Give me money to do what I'm supposed to do!"
"But we already pay you millions or billions of dollars! Also, because you don't want to do what we're asking you to do for what we want for our precious little projects, we're going to threaten your main budget that you say is insufficient for what you're already supposed to be doing."
Other side pouts.
I didn't see the original grilling, so I'm sure my paraphrasing is all out of order and inaccurate. But it shows how at least they're threatening him for something he shouldn't be doing (asking for extra money), even though the reasons are probably misguided and certainly inappropriate. So it blunders along ... and at least Martin knows he's not alone, and has to work with others.
His "a few eggs have to be cracked" mentality isn't necessarily what we want in an unvetted loose canon. That begs the question, who vetted him? It seems AT&T and that other big telco that's at least doing the fiber thing were on the good side of the vetting. | |
|  ARGONAUTgot ping?Premium
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | Radio owned by the few. Look at radio after deregulation.  | |
| | garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY | Re: Radio owned by the few. I love radio after deregulation! It totally sucked before! | |
| | | ARGONAUTgot ping?Premium
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | Re: Radio owned by the few. LOL | |
|
| | Funding I think the FCC is self funded. The two may threaten to block funding, but that's not all of congress, let alone, the FCC's general funding. If they convince congress to block funding, that's only for a specific project that was enacted by congress for a specific purpose, the digital transition.
That's not to say congress could dissolve (or strip power, etc) the FCC with a 2/3rd majority in both houses, or less with the president's node.
Anyone have any information on how the FCC is funded? I'm 99% sure it's from licensing and not congress.
I don't think Martin is shaking in his boots. His term is not infinite like a congressman/women. | |
| | | Cox communications I wonder how Cox communications in Atlanta does it. They own WSB-TV, Atlanta News Journal newspaper, multiple AM & FM radio stations and at one time the local cable company. | |
|
| |
|
|
