backtop

Internet Congressional Panel Probes FCC
Tom Corelis (Blog) - March 14, 2008 3:54 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 43 comment(s) - last by ChronosEx42.. on Mar 16 at 3:12 PM
Martin facing growing unrest with recent announcements

Dissatisfied with the FCC’s performance and armed with a pile of allegations from FCC employees, ex-employees, and “other sources,” democratic House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell gave FCC Chairman Kevin Martin two weeks to hand over a large volume of written records pertaining to the commission’s management practices.

At its root, the probe stems from what Dingell and republican cosigner Joe Barton believe to be gross mismanagement that resulted in skewed policy decisions: rumors have long abounded that Martin and his subordinates attempt to influence policy decisions towards Martin’s personal bias.

Specifically targeted in the inquiry are many of the FCC’s recent decisions regarding the cable TV and TV media industries, which recently reached decisions favorable to local TV stations and “a la carte” cable programming: the former decision was eventually justified by an internal audit that a whistleblower called “skewed,” and the latter by a sudden change of course.

Dingell says his committee is “investigating allegations” which it has “reason to believe are credible,” including charges of flawed management practices “that may adversely affect the commission's ability both to discharge effectively its statutory duties and to guard against waste, fraud and abuse.”

The nature of Dingell’s request is expansive: all phone conversations, e-mails, notes, minutes – anything the FCC might have lying around – related to any of its decisions that Dingell considers suspicious, as well as anything that might suggest “limitations or restrictions imposed on FCC employees' ability to communicate with each other concerning official agency business.”

Many of the FCC’s recent decisions have earned the ire of some powerful opponents: whether it’s the cellphone industry angry at the FCC’s mandatory 700 MHz open access rules, Comcast facing harsh scrutiny for interfering with customers’ file sharing, or Congress and consumer groups strongly objecting to a recent “loosening of the band” on media ownership rules, it’s possible Congress has had enough of Martin and are now seeking to have him removed.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Cable Lobby
By blowfish on 3/14/2008 8:40:50 AM , Rating: 4
Seems to me that the cable industry is probably concerned about the possibility of "a la carte" cable, and have been lobbying against it. This smear campaign will be a part of that campaign. Martin has certainly been more effective than Michel Powell, son of Colin, previously at the FCC.

Just imagine being able to get cable without all those junk channels!




RE: Cable Lobby
By BMFPitt on 3/14/2008 8:58:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just imagine being able to get cable without all those junk channels!
I would love to see the cable industry be forced to open the wires and let anyone provide content for some fee paid to the cable owner. You wouldn't need a la carte to be mandated because the market would take care of that in short order.


RE: Cable Lobby
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2008 10:34:20 AM , Rating: 3
It would be nice wouldn't it. I've got a few hundred channels. Would be nice to only have to pay for those that I actually watch. I mean why should I have to pay for Lifetime (of which I share Family Guy's opinion of, "television for idiots"), when there's not a chance in hell that I'll ever watch it. I just want the local channels, cartoon network, comedy central, sci-fi, discovery, tbs, and a few others.


RE: Cable Lobby
By BMFPitt on 3/14/2008 11:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that you weren't more than willing to have your rates jacked up $5 to get the Spanish Home Shopping Network in in HD?

Networks, ESPN 1-Ocho, Comedy Central, History, TNT, SciFi, NFL, and and whatever channel has the NHL in any given year.... That's all I need. And with the money I'd save, I'd probably get HBO.


RE: Cable Lobby
By omnicronx on 3/14/2008 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 4
We have had A la carte digital cable here for years, and its not like it is any cheaper unless you watch two channels. They merely charge more for a la carte items, hoping that you will buy the package deal. For example, I will pay around 2.50-3 dollars a month for a channel, but the package deal that comes with up to 10 channels can be had for under 10 bucks. It seems like a good idea at first, but in reality its almost impossible to save money.


RE: Cable Lobby
By theapparition on 3/14/2008 11:21:43 AM , Rating: 3
Finally, some reason. It sounds like a good idea, but in areas already implementing, it doesn't end up being so great.
Unless you have a very limited channel selection, a la carte can end up costing you more. It sounds nice if every channel cost the same and if you got them all it would cost the same as the package price, but that's not going to happen.

Sorry, but I would never pay for the cooking channel, but ended up watching a show the other night. I'd never pay for BET, but they aired a pretty good movie a few weeks ago. I find I end up watching more channels than my "favorites".

Here's my advice. Block all those channels that you say you won't pay for. Now, after 3 months, do you ever have a desire to tune to any of the other channels. If so, then a la carte is not for you.


RE: Cable Lobby
By sweetsauce on 3/14/2008 11:39:36 AM , Rating: 3
Let me get this straight. Your reasoning for a la carte being a bad thing is because your cable provider is being an ass and raping you on per channel prices instead of offering a reasonable cost per channel like they could and should do? You must bend over and take it often in life.


RE: Cable Lobby
By omnicronx on 3/14/2008 12:14:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Let me get this straight. Your reasoning for a la carte being a bad thing is because your cable provider is being an ass and raping you on per channel prices instead of offering a reasonable cost per channel like they could and should do?
Yes, thats exactly what I am saying. I live in a market where A la cart service is already in place, its part of their business plan, whats so hard to understand. You would not last too long as a CEO if you decided to mark down your individual products cheaper than your promotional packages and combos.

In a perfect world, sure cheap a la carte prices would be great, but unless company execs start going rabid and lose their minds, they would have to be stupid to implement a plan like this.


RE: Cable Lobby
By theapparition on 3/14/2008 2:11:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You must bend over and take it often in life.

No, but I'm also a realist and know that cable companies are not going to give up billions in revenue so easily.

I stand by my prediction that in the end, you'll end up getting nickle-and-dimed for more, while getting less.


RE: Cable Lobby
By rdeegvainl on 3/14/2008 12:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why should I block all those channels if I have a choice to just get the channels I want? I'm kind of tired of being told what I want by other people. Yeah I'll watch something on some obscure channel when nothing else is on and I'm feeling lazy. Those channels still aren't worth my money, and if I had a choice, I would rather pay the same amount of money for only the channels I wanted. That way more of my money go torwards them. More money for them to use to continue doing what they are doing already and to make better quality programing.


RE: Cable Lobby
By BMFPitt on 3/14/2008 1:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, I will pay around 2.50-3 dollars a month for a channel, but the package deal that comes with up to 10 channels can be had for under 10 bucks.
So apparently you have a great deal going with a la carte packages! 95% of markets look more like:

Network channels only: $10
Barebones that doesn't have many highly popular channels: $40
Decent package that's good for most people: $50
Pretty much everything but premium channels: $60

Then they charge you $10 for HD and $15 for DVR. $10 in misc. non-voluntary fees.

So I would need 17 channels @ $3 to make it add up to my current package. I don't watch anything near 17 channels. I would end up saving a lot. And not subsidizing crap channels at the same time.


RE: Cable Lobby
By theapparition on 3/14/2008 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 3
There is no doubt that some can save money. If all you watch is a few channels, than I agree that a la carte is the way to go. But lets look at what you originally pointed out.
quote:
Network channels only: $10

No choice, you will have to get all network channels, and be prepared to pay extra for that network only channel option. Due to FCC regulations, cable providers MUST provide local staions and they cannot be blocked.
quote:
Barebones that doesn't have many highly popular channels: $40
Decent package that's good for most people: $50
Pretty much everything but premium channels: $60

Yes, you are paying more, but (in my case) the basic to ultra-uber package is only $15, and that includes close to 200 extra channels. Do I watch them all, absoulutely not. But I like the freedom knowing that if there was something on, I can just tune to it. Yes, that is preference, and if you don't need that than possibly you can save some money. But apparently, you don't have a family. What I watch (movie/premium channels excluded) is only a handful of channels. I could probably live with just the discovery channel stations. Now add what my wife and children watch, and your now in the 50+ channels. There's over 15 childrens channels, and yes, they all get tuned to at one time or another.
quote:
Then they charge you $10 for HD and $15 for DVR. $10 in misc. non-voluntary fees.

What's your point, your still going to have to pay for this.

quote:
So I would need 17 channels @ $3 to make it add up to my current package. I don't watch anything near 17 channels. I would end up saving a lot. And not subsidizing crap channels at the same time.

So assuming your current package is $50, take $10 network right off the top. Now your down to $40/$3=13 channels. Hmm, let's see....13 channels or 80 for the same price. How low are you willing to go. 10 channels to save 9/month?
Your assuming that your provider will price them at $3 a pop. Apparently, Omnicroix's cable provider does, but that's no guarantee yours will. Additionally, they may charge premiums for certain stations.

Another side effect of this is that many stations may go out of business. Stations are in business to make money. They make money advertising. When viewership falls, they lose advertising, and lose budgets to make quality programing and hence accelerate the fall. Why some here may not give a rat's behind about loosing the Lifetime network......consider this. The Lifetime network had a viewership over 5x the Sci-fi channels. Yep, there are a lot more middleaged woman who want emotional tearjerkers than there are nerdy guys who want to catch a glimps of seven-of-nine. How would you feel now that the cable channels that you like have now gone out of business? Guess your really going to save money since you won't have any channels to watch anymore.

Trust me, just like "super-sizing" a burger combo meal, cable providers will make it sensible to upgrade to the full package after only a few channels. Don't think for one second that if you only subscribe to 10 channels, that your only going to have a $10 cable bill. It's going to save you a few bucks at best.

Where this is all heading is towards Pay per View. Want to watch an episode of "Lost", enter your credit card. This is a path that I don't like one bit. Call me old and funny, but I see where this is going and think that instead of getting hit up front, we are all going to be nickle-and-dimed to death.

Similar to cell phone plans. Instead of adding all those features, they are counting on you to go over your allotment and then hammer you with fees. There should be no reason a $60/month cell bill can ballon to $500 in a single month, yet we see it happening all the time.


RE: Cable Lobby
By BMFPitt on 3/14/2008 2:40:15 PM , Rating: 1
You entire argument can be summed up as this: "I prefer paying for 200 channels, so I want to all of you who only watch 3 to have to keep subsidizing them."


RE: Cable Lobby
By theapparition on 3/14/2008 2:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
No,
If you kept reading, I also think that by removing channel selection, they open the door for pay-per-view events on channels that you don't subscribe to, and with that, comes higher overall prices. You pay less up front, but in the end get hammered. That's all.

And yes, at one time, channels like the sci-fi channel were basically subsidized by being part of cable "packages". Without the viewship that came from those packages, it would have never lasted, along with a hundred other channels.

If you only watch 3 channels, then why even pay for cable? Just youtube all your content.


RE: Cable Lobby
By BMFPitt on 3/14/2008 3:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you kept reading, I also think that by removing channel selection, they open the door for pay-per-view events on channels that you don't subscribe to, and with that, comes higher overall prices. You pay less up front, but in the end get hammered. That's all.
Pay less up front, pay more if I choose to? Sounds great, where do I sign up?
quote:
And yes, at one time, channels like the sci-fi channel were basically subsidized by being part of cable "packages". Without the viewship that came from those packages, it would have never lasted, along with a hundred other channels.
And I would miss SciFi if it were gone, but that doesn't mean I think it should be subsidized.


RE: Cable Lobby
By chrispyski on 3/14/2008 4:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree absolutely. Most people don't realize what channels people actually watch. The Sci-Fi channel is a perfect example. If channels went a la carte, sci-fi channel probably wouldn't last a year, and in a few years we would be left with a very limited selection with little chance for any new channels.

And I assure you, those few channels would not be the ones you would want to watch, they would be channels like Lifetime and Hallmark because the demographic those channels serve is huge compared to those who want to watch old X-Files episodes on Sci-Fi.


RE: Cable Lobby
By fic2 on 3/14/2008 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
I work in the cable industry and can tell you that a la carte programming is one of their worst nightmares. The worst nightmare of the content providers is unbundling of channels. Bundling when Disney (or whoever) says if you want ESPN you must also buy Disney, Disney Family, and a few other minor channels. The FCC has been off and on talking not allowing bundling.

BTW, I have heard that ESPN is the most expensive channel and usually the one driving cable prices up.

If you could do real a la carte where you could do a channel for a month or two instead of a year it would probably save people money. But, as mentioned somewhere else cable will make their bundles cheaper.


RE: Cable Lobby
By Screwballl on 3/14/2008 12:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it’s possible Congress has had enough of Martin and are now seeking to have him removed.


That is the whole point of this.. Big media doesn't want customers to choose their packages. That means those 500 channels that are forced into packages by the cable companies will lose a majority of their income and thus big Media will also lose their income. People will choose what they want without being stuck with extra channels.
At this point it will become up to sales to "suggest" channels like: "Can we also offer you the first 3 months free if you also get the spanish full contact golf channel for free and then automatically start charging you $10 a month (per channel) after that."

Ushering in a new generation of sales calls, emails, junk mail in your mailbox and increased number and length of commercials. Also they will be raising the base price with "convenience fees" (just to be able to choose the ala carte channels) and the required fees to pay for the digital box that is needed to have the ala carte packages (because the cable company is too lazy to allow you the 10 channels you want on the 125 channels most TVs are capable of)...

So that leaves you the choice of paying $50 a month for 200 channels, 195 which you never watch, or paying $70 a month for the 5 channels that you do watch and maybe another 15 that you may watch on occasion.

Give me $5 per channel per month and I will take the 5 local channels for the local news and the Weather channel... everything else is crap.


Typical