 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | FCCs removes rules forcing cable sell content to Sat &Telcos Google just lost some leverage for Kansas City TV offerings. The FCC just removed the rules requiring cable companies to sell content they own to satellite & telcos. Comcast still has to sell content for a couple years yet due to merger with NBC approvals. » www.latimes.com/entertainment/en···23.storyThe Federal Communications Commission has decided not to extend its regulations requiring cable operators that own programming to make that content available to rival pay-TV distributors such as satellite broadcasters.
Known as the program access rules, the regulations were a key part of the 1992 Cable Act and credited with driving the growth of the satellite broadcasting industry.
However, now that DirecTV and Dish are viable competitors to cable, and phone companies such as Verizon and AT&T are also going head-to-head against cable providers, the commission decided to let the rules expire.
DirecTV, Verizon and smaller cable operators fought to keep the rules intact. Google, which is launching its own programming service in the Midwest, also tried to make the case to the FCC that the rules were still important.
"The exclusivity ban served its purpose, but now the facts justifying its existence have changed in favor of consumers," FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell added. "Accordingly, this creaky relic must be shown the door."
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | So how do consumers win? A long time ago I thought content creation and content delivery were deliberately kept separate for all kinds of good reasons and, to my knowledge, no bad reasons. Tell us oh FCC, did you burn all the history books? |
|
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Linklist
I'm not crazy about content prices but I really see no legal basis for the original rule. The government should never be allowed to compel a private interest to engage in business against its wishes.
The problem of course is another creation of government... who in their right mind thought that merging a content distributor like Comcast with a content creator like NBCU would be a good idea?
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I agree that they shouldn't have been allowed to merge but how do you see this as a creation of government?!?! Do you somehow think that if government wasn't involved in the process at all they wouldn't have merged? This is clearly a creation of big business... not government.
Certainly there is a conflict of interest when distributors merge with/buy out content creators. This rule removal is anti-consumer as the conglomerates can now exploit this conflict of interest to hinder competition. The way to handle this is to restrict infrastructure companies (Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc.) to only providing a pipe, not allow the selling of content. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by CXM_Splicer:I agree that they shouldn't have been allowed to merge but how do you see this as a creation of government?!?! The government approved the merger. That is why I describe this as a creation of government. This merger would have been the ideal time to apply some anti-trust laws to protect consumers.
See? I'm not completely anti-government. 
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to rradina
They still can't withhold programming from other providers. If they do the FCC says it will assume they are doing it for anti-competitive reasons. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Linklist
The FCC, beholden to it's corporate masters. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to BF69
Did I misunderstand the article. I thought that's what the FCC claims is outdated and will be changed. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by rradina:Did I misunderstand the article. I thought that's what the FCC claims is outdated and will be changed.
You are right. He was wrong. The FCC is going to allow cable to withhold content.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Linklist:said by rradina:Did I misunderstand the article. I thought that's what the FCC claims is outdated and will be changed.
You are right. He was wrong. The FCC is going to allow cable to withhold content. Say again?
The order includes a shot clock on resolving access complaints and the presumption that withholding co-owned regional sports networks is anticompetitive. It is essentially the same as the order FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski circulated two weeks ago.
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···acts.php |
|
| reply to pnh102
If they want access to government infrastructure, then they should be compelled to follow certain rules. Cable can't exist without running wires on property that they do not own. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by biochemistry:If they want access to government infrastructure, then they should be compelled to follow certain rules. Cable can't exist without running wires on property that they do not own.
I believe this is wrong. Cable companies pay for right-of-way. They are not given it as a government grant. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by rradina:Did I misunderstand the article. I thought that's what the FCC claims is outdated and will be changed.
You are right. He was wrong. The FCC is going to allow cable to withhold content. Key fact missing: withhold content that they own. Much of what is on cable is independently produced and any carrier is free to negotiate carriage terms. I don't think this will make much of a difference in practice.
I suspect that the "real" satellite and telco companies (DirecTV, Dish, AT&T, Verizon) have been simply negotiating deals all along for their content, and not invoking this "must provide" regulation.
My opinion of this is that, once again, this is Google trying to get regulations to do for them what business arrangements can't. They seem to do a lot of this, and then they hypocritically cloak their needs in "Internet Freedom" types of arguments. And lots of sycophants follow, because, of course, established carriers are evil and Google is good. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Hey does this mean that the telco's no longer have to allow cable VoIP to connect to the PSTN? |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to biochemistry
said by biochemistry:If they want access to government infrastructure, then they should be compelled to follow certain rules. Cable can't exist without running wires on property that they do not own.
What government infrastructure are you referring to?
Cable obtains most of its pole-attachment space from telco.
In Kansas City, the entity that "should be compelled to follow certain rules" is Google. They're the ones forcing TV customers to buy unwanted broadband; they're the ones accessing government infrastructure. |
|
