FCC Delays Vote On Cable TV Regulation

Tech.Luver recommends a story unfolding at the FCC, where Chairman Kevin Martin delayed a vote on a report that would open the door to more agency control over the cable television industry. Analysts say that Martin lacked support to pass the measure. The delayed vote was on a draft report, backed by Martin, that found that cable companies control enough of the pay-TV market to warrant more oversight under the so-called "70/70" rule — 70% of US households passed by cable and 70% of those with access to cable service subscribing to it. The cable industry disputed the figures in the report, and Martin's two fellow Republican commission members also expressed doubts.

70/70

[Bob of Dole (453013)]

"70% of 70%" is a nice way to avoid saying "less than half".
It almost succeeds in making it sound like "PRACTICALLY EVERYONE!"

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Or "almost half" depending on your point of view.

But as someone who lives in an area not served by cable, I'd like to note that there is some value in tracking the two statistics separately; "70% of all possible subscribers" and "49% of all households" are not obviously the same statistic unless you also know the cable availability rate.

Re:70/70

[ZombieRoboNinja (905329)]

Actually, according to the cable industry, 58% of TV households have basic cable.

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=54 [ncta.com]

Those statistics also say that there are 122,500,000 homes "passed by cable" out of 112,00,000 homes with television... so apparently cable is available to 109% of households, which I'd say is pretty impressive.

Re:

[teebob21 (947095)]

Good attempt at spin, but you missed the most important statistic -- and it was on the same page:

Cable Penetration of TV Households (June 2007): 58.3%

The number comes from a third-party research company, and falls well short of the 70% penetration required by the 1984 law. Kevin Martin needs to get his witch's cauldron and cook the numbers a little longer on this one.

Additionally, 'homes passed' doesn't measure only houses where people may live. It also often includes businesses and other locations that the

Re:

[Turken (139591)]

Doesn't really matter how much you try to cook the numbers, the real problem is the 70/70 law.

I would love to see some historical data on cable subscriber numbers over the years. As far as I can tell, the cable companies know that every time they raise rates they're going to lose a percentage of their subscriber base, so the last 20 years have been a careful balance of keeping the rates right at the pain threshold for consumers so that ~60% will grudgingly subscribe but the 70% requirement for regulation w

As one of the 30%...

[solios (53048)]

... my house is wired up for cable (EXTENSIVELY, as there are drops on the ground floor, second floor, and attic), and I don't own a TV. I don't provide Comcast any revenue, though previous residents clearly did, extensively.

That would put me in one of the 70% of cabled houses, and in the 30% of the 100% of that 70% that, while having the wiring, does not have cable.

government logic

[User 956 (568564)]

a report that would open the door to more agency control over the cable television industry.

Clearly, more control is needed, to protect the children. 9/11

Re:

[elrous0 (869638)]

Wish there was a mod for "Clever TV reference"

This isn't (yet) about censorship.

[ZombieRoboNinja (905329)]

TFA is light on details, but it seems the proposal that was withdrawn was something about requiring cable companies to play material from minority-owned small businesses on the "excess channels" they don't use. Still questionable, but not "OMG the FCC wants to censor my cable TV!"

And BTW, the "fuck the FCC" people might want to consider that the fight here is between the FCC and CABLE COMPANIES about stuff like whether they should be required to provide a la carte channel options. Stuff that the cable companies may not want, but which doesn't seem to have a whole lot of bearing on free-speech issues. If you want to argue that a government bureaucracy is worse than a corporate oligarchy, that's a fair stance, but having both filed federal taxes and tried to get a decent internet plan from Comcast, I'm ambivalent.

Re:

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

TFA is light on details, but it seems the proposal that was withdrawn was something about requiring cable companies to play material from minority-owned small businesses on the "excess channels" they don't use.

So, it's affirmative action.

Re:

[iminplaya (723125)]

If they want to require anything, it should be for one dedicated channel with a live area weather map. The bandwidth is low and the costs are minimal. But requiring any community service at all is just too "socialist" for some, I guess. The real problem is the fact that the cable companies are granted monopolies in their respective communities. That should be the first thing to go.

Re:

[hal2814 (725639)]

"If they want to require anything, it should be for one dedicated channel with a live area weather map."

That sort of thing is content. Maybe instead of lobbying the government or even your cable company to do something about it, you should ask your local television stations since they are the ones actually in charge of what content to put on the air. All of the local stations in my area that have gone digital provide one slice of their signal exclusively for weather. Given channel X on ATSC, X-1 will be

Re:This isn't (yet) about censorship.

[Ender77 (551980)]

I see your point but as soon as the FCC gets a toe hold into cable in any form, expect your favorite cable shows to suddenly turn Disney on your ass.

Next frontier

[edwardpickman (965122)]

If the FCC drops the hammer on cable I guess adult, language, subject matter not porn, will have to move to the web. I wonder if they are going to attack channels like TCM, FMC and IFC because they don't edit for TV? I just wonder how long after the move to the web they try regulating it? That's going to be a tough one because out of the gate most homes have access but it's not dedictated access so that 70% rule is going to become meaningless.

Not sure what this means

[Orange Crush (934731)]

On the one hand, Comcast and their ilk have been dragging their heels implementing things like CableCard and working hard to keep their (in many cases) geographical monopolies safe from any other competition. As far as TV goes, most people's options boil down to little more than an antenna, DirecTV or The Cable Company. If there was an injection of more competition in the market I think we'd see a lot more innovative services like more robust video on demand, ala carte programming options, more and higher quality HD channels, and innovative new services we haven't even thought of.

On the other hand, this 70/70 rule sounds downright silly, as I doubt very much that's the case nationwide. The FCC has proven time and time again that it's an inept bureaucracy more interested in maintaining its own power and relevance than any concern for the public good. Handing them more power is seldom good for anybody.

I might be able to get onboard with something like a 70/70 rule if it was a little more automatic and less prone to government meddling. i.e. Let's say Comcast has 70% of 70% or more in a given metropolitan area--then kick in a rule forcing them to resell wholesale access to their infrastructure to other local competitors to keep them from being the only game in town. And before someone points out it's *their* infrastructure and they built and bought it--they did so with a lot of government subsidies and that infrastructure is sitting on a lot of public land. They only have mini-monopolies because the government has allowed it.

I'm interested to hear other people's takes on the pros and cons of all of this.

Re:

[Dachannien (617929)]

Really, this is a case of "Whoever wins, we (the consumers) lose." The cable companies don't want the FCC getting into the cable industry's business because they fear the FCC mandating all sorts of extra crap from them that could potentially benefit the consumer without giving them the chance to profit from it. On the other hand, the content industry would probably be happy with the FCC getting more involved, because they could use the FCC as a tool for pushing DRM, unskippable advertising, etc., through

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

On the other hand, the content industry would probably be happy with the FCC getting more involved, because they could use the FCC as a tool for pushing DRM, unskippable advertising, etc., through the cable and into the consumer's face.

What? The cable industry is already doing that right now!

Re:

[Dachannien (617929)]

Yeah, but imagine if the MPAA only had to go through one federal regulatory agency to get their way, instead of through a bunch of cable companies and their local and state regulators.

Re:

[teebob21 (947095)]

Hmmm, what the hell; I've got karma to burn. Your arguments fail to move me -- the examples either apply to telecom as a whole, or are simply untrue. You've clearly never had working knowledge of this industry.

As far as TV goes, most people's options boil down to little more than an antenna, DirecTV or The Cable Company.

True, there are currently 3 competing providers across the US, four if you separate DirectTV and Echostar. There's also FIOS. Some area have overbuilders, essentially a second cable company in the same area. Since I can't possibly come up with another crappy car analogy, we'll have to settle for an

Re:

[Pax681 (1002592)]

In the UK British Telecom HAD a monopoly in every sense of the word due to them owning ALL the telephone landline infrastructure. now this was ALL built with piblic money as BT used to be part of the Post Office and was sold off by the Brit govt in the 80's when that old bag thatcher started selling everything off that was publicly owned..lol Now a few years back BT were MADE to sell wholesale access to other telephone companies and ISP's to the point where they HAD to allow other companies to put equipmen

Nice job Yogi

[YU5333021 (1093141)]

"so-called "70/70" rule -- 70% of US households passed by cable and 70% of those with access to cable service subscribing to it."

so only 30% of US household were NOT passed by cable, and have access to it. And of those 30% who can access cable, only 70% chose to subscribe to it. In conclusion:

70% of households can't have cable
21% of households pay for cable
10**% of households STEAL cable

(**=3% statistical margin of error)

Go tell mom! You heard it first on slashdot. The whole industry has been a miserable failure. The size of tubes required to carry high definition content is so large, the raw materials required for such tubes would strip 4 feet of entire Alaskan top soil. This is why I can only get television through my phone line. I only get one channel. In mono. With no moving pictures.

That was the worst definition of so-called anything. Even by slashdot standards.

Re:

[pclminion (145572)]

so only 30% of US household were NOT passed by cable, and have access to it.

Huh? I parsed that as 70% of houses have cable PASSING BY, i.e., accessible to them. Spectacularly poor choice of wording.

Oh fuck

[lazyDog86 (1191443)]

Wait, can I still say that here? Oh, sorry, never mind.

It goes without saying that I for one welcome our new FCC overlords.

Re:

[Sponge Bath (413667)]

As long as it is not prime time and you use it as an exclamation instead of a reference to a sex act.

Observe:
"I fucked a sheep!?" - forbidden
"Fuck! That was a sheep?" - OK

I'm confused

[HangingChad (677530)]

Which high dollar lobbyist and party fund raiser would this benefit? And which high dollar lobbyist and party fund raiser would oppose it?

Re:

[Black-Man (198831)]

Cable companies are against it strongly - one of the proposals is to force them to provide ala carte channel packages.

Schizophrenic FCC

[grumling (94709)]

So they want to force all-la-carte programming, but also force a bunch of must-carry programming as well? Who's going to be paying for the must-carry stuff? What happens when cable companies move toward an all on-demand architecture and the concept of a channel disappears (it is being tested by most companies now, and is how AT&T U-verse works)? They won't have any unused bandwidth, so does it become a moot point?

Are they going to force the satellite guys to do this in areas where they are dominant (and yes, in many rural areas, there are many more Dishes than cable lines on houses)?

And why are they picking on cable companies when I can't get a discount on my cell phone bill, even though I bought an unlocked, unsubsidized phone?

Re:

[r_jensen11 (598210)]

Just because something's available doesn't mean you have to get it. I think they want to make these programs available, but not force them down consumers' throats.

But it makes pretty good sense. Suppose a family living in California or New York recently emigrated from Latin America, and none of the family is conversent in English. Why the hell should they have to pay for all of these channels that they don't understand? Why can't they just subscribe to VHUno and other Latino channels?

Re:

[Culture20 (968837)]

And why are they picking on cable companies when I can't get a discount on my cell phone bill, even though I bought an unlocked, unsubsidized phone?

Because people have been complaining about cable companies for at least a decade and a half, if not more. The Gubment's just now getting around to doing something. Give them another decade for the cell phone companies.

Things the Government Can Do

[neuromancer2701 (875843)]

I agree that the government does need to get involved but in a different way. Currently to get a TV license you must apply to each municipality for that area. This causes situations like the one I used to live in. We used to live in Northern Virgina and we were forced to use Comcast when right across the street other people had Cox. The key was that the Cable companies did collude with each other because the Cox customers could not get Comcast either. Having price control in this situation would be hor

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

The part where the people (by an Act of Congress), *not* private telephone companies, paid for the vast majority of the cable. "We the people" should continue to have a say in how they are best distributed amongst the "needy" (speakers).

No one calls them on the constitution

[Calledor (859972)]

A congressman is a constinuency's lottery ticket to see if they can strike it big and get their trivial or social crap made law. Ammending the constitution is a bitch and two-thirds so passing blatently illegal legislation that no one will ever call them on because it'll never involve anything that they can be brought to court for is matter of habit. The president could call them on it, but given that the two branches have developed some kind of fucked up complacency over the last century people are going

Re:Fuck the FCC

[Osty (16825)]

Or even worse, signals that people pay for that are sent along copper, as is the case they are trying to get to here?

Who said anything about censorship? This was a push to get more regulatory control over the cable industry in order to do things like force a la carte subscription options. You could argue that government has no place to regulate private industry like that, but that has nothing to do with free speech or censorship.

Also, the FCC doesn't cover cable-only channels like FX (lots of "shit" and near nudity there with shows like The Shield and Nip/Tuck, with only self-regulation stopping them from going further), in terms of censorship. They cover broadcast channels that then happen to be re-distributed via cable.

What part about Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to understand?

Congress can't make it illegal for you to say "shit" or "fuck" or show a tit on TV, but they don't have to allow you to use the public airwaves to do it.

Re:Fuck the FCC

[forkazoo (138186)]

Also, the FCC doesn't cover cable-only channels like FX (lots of "shit" and near nudity there with shows like The Shield and Nip/Tuck, with only self-regulation stopping them from going further), in terms of censorship. They cover broadcast channels that then happen to be re-distributed via cable.

Correct. However, the FCC have demonstrated a very clear desire to censor cable and sat. broadcasts on many occasions. Concern in this regard may be untopical, but it is hardly unjustified.

Re:Fuck the FCC

[djw (3187)]

Congress can't make it illegal for you to say "shit" or "fuck" or show a tit on TV, but they don't have to allow you to use the public airwaves to do it.

Thank you, Thomas Paine. I suppose it follows that they can't make it illegal for you to stage a protest, but they don't have to allow you to use public property to do it. Right? Wrong.

I can't believe this authoritarian bullshit I'm replying to is standing at +5 Informative. Exercising your freedom of speech means something only if it's in public. What the hell is the point of protecting private speech?

Re:

[stanleypane (729903)]

I wholeheartedly agree with you sir. More boobies on the protest front, ASAP! And impeach the fucking president already. Phew. I already feel like my voice is being heard better now.

Re:

[djw (3187)]

I would note that any protest you staged that is considered to do harm to the public interest can be stopped. This is why we forbid hate speech; it generates a toxic environment. Similarly, with airwaves, the reasoning is that because there is a limited number, and everyone has access to them and regularly utilizes it, we should be aware of how what we put there affects them. In the interest of children, for instance, we forbid certain categories of behavior being portrayed during certain periods of the day.

The problem with this approach is that someone has to decide what constitutes hate speech. Right now, certain classes (race, religion) are protected while others (sexual orientation) are not. Since the ability to criticize the government is vital to democracy, we can't trust the government with the power to make any such distinctions. The harm to democracy that arises from outlawing ANY speech far outweighs whatever harm that speech could cause by being heard.

You can argue all you want about the categories, but it's pretty accepted that environments that affect everyone should have some publicly motivated controls on them. The regulator of those controls, ultimately, is the government. And thank goodness! Because we have no inherent protection from corporations or even just other individuals otherwise.

The only difference between the governm

Re:

[djw (3187)]

So you say. But the thing about democracy is that it does not have to do with what one person holds to be true, or even what the objective truth is, but rather what the society as a whole holds to be true. If the society holds that hate speech is a form of speech that should not be tolerated, because its harm outweighs the harm done by a degree of censorship - then that is the case. That is, in fact, the meaning of democracy, that these values are decided not by a single authoritative voice, but by a consensus.

That's one reason the Bill of Rights exists, and why it's so difficult to change the Constitution. The framers recognized that free speech is so fundamental to the democratic process that even that process should not be able to abridge it -- at least, not without a great deal of debate. But unfortunately, we've had a series of bad Supreme Court decisions that have limited freedom of speech in the name of safety, decency, and other false idols.

Before you argue, though, that we don't have a true consensus; that is a problem with the process and not the result. If your actual issue is that we do a poor job of achieving a true consensus, then wage that battle instead.

My argument is with the notion that we can ever be better o

Re:

[djw (3187)]

I don't want to get into a big debate about health care -- neither of us can solve the problem, and it's off-topic -- but I do want to respond to a few points you made.

So would a free market health system work better? I suggest no: most people are not equipped to have a good idea whether a doctor is good, or a total quack. This is the problem with any expert. If you don't know as much as you need to, it's unlikely you're going to have a good handle on how good they are. And thus, we need a third-party non-invested source to give us the skinny.

I agree. But why should that source be the government? Why couldn't there be multiple private certifying agencies in competition with each other? You seem to value consensus, so why do you insist that all doctors be certified by one central agency? (If that's not what you're insisting, I apologize.)

Should it cost a lot for doctors to get licensed? Yes, because they're important, and it's important that we make sure they're good.

Broken record here, but it should cost

Re:Fuck the FCC

[MBCook (132727)]

They get to censor because of public mandate. It's less true now (although there are plenty of use who don't mind and wish they would do more). But back when they were founded in '34, the general public would have had a heart attack if they heard someone saying "fuck" on the radio. Same thing for TV when it came along. People liked the FCC doing this (and they still to, for the most part, or at least don't mind).

Then again, a great many more people had a sense of decency back then. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you need to.

Why do they get to regulate signals sent along copper? Two reasons. First of all (and most obviously)... it's public. It's not a private channel it is broadcast. Second, just because you receive something over Cable doesn't mean it isn't on the open airwaves for others. That's why NBC still has to follow those rules. FCC is more lax on cable for this exact reason, especially on pay channels like HBO (where they can do whatever they want with a few exceptions, like child pornography).

Why the police arrest you for saying "fuck"? I doubt they can. Unless you've been belligerent and harassing someone else doing it. In that case, you've already committed a crime. But if you just stand on a corner, yell "fuck", then get on with life as if nothing happened, they can't arrest you.

For the last part... yell at the supreme court. Vote your congressman out. Or understand that that was designed to protect political speech and most people are more worried about that and other important uses (like freedom of the press) than giving you the "right" to say "fuck" whenever you want. It's called priorities.

This message has been a public service (something else the FCC gets to do) by MBCook. Mod as you wish.

Re:

[MBCook (132727)]

That doesn't disprove my point, that was 40 years ago. Show me a recent case. Show me something since 2000. Better yet, show me something that isn't an anomaly (which I believe any recent case in the US would be).

Re:Fuck the FCC

[YU5333021 (1093141)]

YA!!! Fuck the FCC!!

I just bought a russian made transmitter (runs of rancid potatoes) in order to broadcast my own free channel about cats. C E T network. I'm having difficulties with selecting a stable frequency (russian letters are funny), so anything goes... (usually everybody's cell phone reception within a mile of the transmitter). The FCC doesn't like me having freedoms, and have been hot on my tail, so I installed the device on top of a garbage truck that does the neighborhood rounds daily.

I just wish the government would stay away from my private business. All they want is to protect monopoly of OLD moneys. Back in early '90s I set up my own beeper service, but got violently shut down. Apparently I was 'interfering' with aeroplanes and police business communications. Assholes. I think it's about high time to have airwave anarchy. Let the strongest signal win! Bring it on PBS! You may win elsewhere, but on my block it's gonna be all cats, all the time!

Re:Fuck the FCC

[SeaFox (739806)]

Why does the FCC get to censor the airwaves?

Because they are the government agency that was granted this power by the legislative branch, which was granted its power by you.

Can police arrest me for saying "Fuck" in a public place?

Depending on where you are, yes they can. State and local decency laws exist in many areas making swearing an actual crime, although generally they would fine you rather than taking you to jail.

What part about Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to understand?

Weaselly loophole here. The decency standards are more under the control of the FCC, not Congress itself, so Congress has not actually not made any laws abridging freedom of speech, the FCC did. Also note that freedoms stop when they interfere with others' rights.

Re:Just what we need.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just what we need... More government controls...
They always know and do whats best for you and me!

Yeah, I'd say we do. Has cable service and pricing gotten better or worse since they were deregulated in 1996?

The industry has had their chance, and they've shown they'll just collude and buy up new companies, leaving things exactly the way they were competition-wise, only with less oversight to keep them from taking advantage of the situation.

Re:

[RaceCarDriver (856347)]

I forget where I was reading it, but it was something like cable TV rates have gone up every year for 10 or 20(or maybe more) years... And it also mentioned the increase was well above the inflation rate.

Re:

[Z34107 (925136)]

Except that they're not exactly without regulation.

How many municipalities decided that cable networks competing for the same neighborhood would be "wasteful" and only allow one or two companies to provide service?

Competition = good. Except that it's illegal in some places. I wonder why prices are high.

Re:

[gabebear (251933)]

I've lived in at least one town where "the town"(a.k.a. the mayor) decided they only wanted one cable company. You can make a case for more regulation of the cable industry.

1. cable companies are colluding with local governments to drive prices up(in the name of lowering prices...)
2. satellite-tv has a lot more regulation(like must-carry laws), which the cable companies helped push through.
3. A lot of other voters hate cable companies

None of these are particularly strong reasons, but when has that ever stoppe

Re:Just what we need.

[ktappe (747125)]

The current situation of constant rate increases far in excess of inflation and retarded technological innovation is definitive proof that sometimes government regulation is sorely needed. I strongly suspect that if you were a coal miner you'd be rather happy that the gov't has rules preventing you from working 15 hour days, 7 days a week, with no air filters. The next time you're in a car accident, you probably won't consider that it's government regulations that mandated crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, and other innovations that saved your life. Open your eyes and you might see that government regulations are not always bad.

Re:

[DrBuzzo (913503)]

Oh goodie! Price controls! Those always work (sarcasm). or they could reduce regulation such that phone companies, satellite providers, cable companies and so on could charge you whatever they want and then those which have good prices are the ones that get the business thus encouraging others to lower prices. Sounds crazy but this is called "free market" and it's something we don't have that much of in the industry because there's so damn much regulation of who can provide what where and do what and

Re:

[theantipop (803016)]

Ah, the old binary model for product use. Supporting positive change is apparently never allowed when you could pass on the service entirely. Is there anything this argument can't be used against?