FCC Moves To Regulate Cable TV Competition

explosivejared writes "The Federal Communications Commission is likely to impose a new regulation on the largely unregulated cable television industry, the first of what may be more to come. Under a proposed rule circulating at the FCC, cable companies such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable would have to slash the price they charge smaller television programmers to lease access on spare cable channels, a move the FCC says would open up cable viewers to a wider diversity of shows. In addition, the FCC is contemplating a national ownership cap that would prevent one company from having more than 30 percent of all cable subscribers." TechDirt has a jaundiced view of FCC chairman Martin's animus against the cablecos.

Re:Why is this a federal issue?

[ExploHD]

What I think might be interesting is to decouple the wire from the service provider

They do have something like that in Utah called Utopia. Here's the link: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may06/3434 [ieee.org]

Re:tag: fuckthefcc?

[PWill]

Because it's immoral.
The Immorality of Antitrust Law [fee.org]

Re:Teddy Roosevelt would be proud

[Scaba]

In Philly (well, anywhere PECO services), you can buy power from any number of generating companies, buy you still need to pay PECO delivery charges, as it travels over their lines. Which makes sense, else you'd have power lines from a hundred different companies running through your neighborhood, which more or less used to be the case [eei.org]. In the early days, you had dozens of power companies supplying different electrical needs, using different equipment and voltages and whatnot. The same was true for early phone companies, but it was even worse. So regulation and the formation of a natural monopoly made sense in order to ensure efficient and widespread delivery of power.

I've never seen a home that had heat delivered from a remote provider. Generally, you install some sort of local device that converts some material into heat energy. Most popularly this is either oil or natural gas. Gas delivery is probably a natural monopoly in most places, for the same reason electricity is, but oil is delivered by trucks from any one of dozens of such companies in my area. You are free to choose any one, based on price, which keep the competitive. You could, if you so desired, also create your own heating device that runs off the power of human flatulence or insects moving through its chambers, though I doubt you'd generate sufficient amounts of heat for even a small room. Even with a high-fiber diet.

I think my point is that the only efficient way to ensure universal access to certain utilities is to allow one company have a monopoly on, at a minimum, delivery of said utility. However, television (can TV really be called a utility?) shows can be delivered as efficiently over satellite, cable, fiber or probably even wifi or copper pairs with some of the newer breakthroughs in networking. Of course, I'm getting off point, as the regulations aren't exactly about this issue, but fuck it - it's nearly 4am!

Re:tag: fuckthefcc?

[samweber]

*laugh* Have you even read the missive that you link to? And you do realize that you are arguing against the founders of the USA, don't you?

According to the argument that you linked to, it is immoral to have laws against murder, because such laws restrict the freedom of the murderer. (Which, indeed, they do.) However, society has decided that restricting the freedom of the murder victims outweighs the freedom of murderers. Similarly, restricting the freedom of consumers outweighs the freedom of monopolies.

It is ironic that the site you like claims to be in favor of free markets. The argument in favour of free markets is that they spur innovation and fair prices. Monopolies, however, prevent both.

Re:tag: fuckthefcc?

[rasputin465]

Armentano might be an economics professor, but his ideas are by no means accepted as canon by the larger economic community. This includes his idea that regulating monopolies is immoral (which, I might point out, is not an economic stance). His argument rests mainly on one assumption, that corporate regulation works against competition, and competition produces the best goods/services. If this argument were applied to other arenas, it might be true, but it is a fallacy when applied to monopolies. A monopoly is by definition a market where the commodity is controlled by a single entity. In other words, it is the absence of competition. When a corporation constructs a monopoly, they are no longer bound by the rules of the free market, and have much less obligation to maximally satisfy the consumer. Another company will not break that monopoly by simply producing superior products, and so the consumer, lacking the ability to choose, is ultimately who suffers in the end. A government agency stepping in to break that monopoly can stir up the market and provide more choices to the consumer. And that is NOT immoral.

Serious Deja Vu

[BobGregg]

Wait, wait... the FCC is *thinking* of imposing an ownership cap on cable companies? How can you "think" of an idea you already had?

My understanding was that in the late '90s, there basically already *was* an ownership cap on cable. AT&T's entire strategy through that period was to obtain as much of the cable industry as possible and then to use those facilities as a new local-calling infrastructure, so they could take on the Bells head-on again. I was developing at Bell Atlantic in '99, and we were working on creating CLEC interfaces - I was working directly with the AT&T staff that were trying to establish local competition with BA in New York. AT&T's local services were all facilities-based (i.e. cable), nothing leased from the Bells.

Then they ran into a roadblock. They had been promised by the FCC in merger after merger that nobody would stand in their way. This was AT&T's whole gameplan - to build a brand-new local calling empire based on the cable infrastructure. But once they passed 33% share (I forget who they were going to merge with), the FCC suddenly stood up and said no. AT&T was billions and billions in the hole, and suddenly their whole gameplan was in the garbage thanks to the FCC. It was effectively the end of real competition for the telcos, at least at that time.

At least that's my recollection; I could be wrong. Anyway, it doesn't matter one hill of beans one way or the other whether they limit ownership of cable. Until they start forcing competition to be allowed in each metro market, it's all meaningless. My cable/phone bills are more expensive than ever, with even less choices than I had in the late '90s. It seems like the FCC has been *useless* to the American consumer over the past 10 years.