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
By mpjesse on 3/14/2008 7:43:34 AM , Rating: 5
As if open access and packet shaping are bad things for consumers. For the first time in recent memory, the FCC has a chief that's done a couple good things for consumers and he gets grilled for it. His only mistake is not taking corporate America's side on every issue.




RE: Typical
By dgingeri on 3/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Typical
By crimson117 on 3/14/2008 11:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
"republican cosigner Joe Barton"

Don't make this a partisan thing.


RE: Typical
By dgingeri on 3/14/2008 12:08:12 PM , Rating: 1
This is a partisan political thing, plain and simple. the democrats are doing their best to undermine Bush's power any way they can.

Of course, the way things are going, we're more likely to see a civil war this fall than a presidential election.


RE: Typical
By saiga6360 on 3/14/2008 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
"This is a partisan political thing, plain and simple. the democrats are doing their best to undermine Bush's power any way they can."

If so, most people would call that 'damage control.'

It's a good thing.


RE: Typical
By DaveLessnau on 3/14/2008 8:22:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Plus, what's with this:

"...Martin and his subordinates attempt to influence policy decisions towards Martin’s personal bias."

Isn't that one of the JOBS of the person in charge of ANY organization (within the law, of course)?


RE: Typical
By BMFPitt on 3/14/2008 8:53:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Isn't that one of the JOBS of the person in charge of ANY organization (within the law, of course)?
No. His job is to enforce the law, not to play favorites.


RE: Typical
By hcahwk19 on 3/14/2008 11:36:07 AM , Rating: 3
In Administrative Law, which covers all of the government agencies, such as the EPA, FCC, FTC, etc., the agencies themselves are allowed to make their own laws and rulings within the agencies that they then enforce nationwide. Yes, Congress does pass many laws that also relate to these fields, but most of the rules are done by the agencies themselves. And, when the agencies believe someone, an individual, corporation, or association, even states and their agencies, have broken the laws and rules, the hearings and rulings on those actions come almost entirely from the agency itself. It is rare that there is a court case, as we know it, in regards to the administrative agencies.

The people in charge at the FCC have done nothing wrong. They are able to make and enforce the laws they create. And, they can focus more on particular areas if they feel the need to (just like the EPA has now released stricter ozone levels allowed in 345 major counties nationwide, in an effort to stem the low-level ozone it claims triggers asthma; if counties don't comply, the EPA will enforce it by witholding funding money that is tied directly to compliance with EPA regulations, which is where Congress is involved in the process). The FCC has determined that these areas are very important right now, and has ruled the way it sees fit, in order to promote policies it wants.

While there is the possibility that Congress' involvement is purely a simple oversight function, it is most likely just some partisan ploy during an election year. The attachment of a Republican cosigner means nothing. There is not a dime's worth of difference between most members of the two parties today. This is an attempt to make it look "bi-partisan," which is exactly what it is. Both parties are getting something they want out of it. What they should be doing is "non-partisan" work, which would take the party pandering out of it, and leave the focus on the actual work of the people being done. I hate the parsing of words done constantly by politicians and their comrades in the media. They use words that appear to be apolitical, such as bi-partisan, but in reality, that is all it is, politics, and not the work and the will of the people.


RE: Typical
By dever on 3/14/2008 1:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the agencies themselves are allowed to make their own laws
This is why these sort of agencies should be severely limited in their power, if not eliminated altogether. We have branches of government who confiscate our income and have the ability to make laws over which individuals can be imprisoned... and we have no direct influence over them. Sounds worse than taxation without representation.


RE: Typical
By AToZKillin on 3/14/2008 2:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
Law school guy? Can sort of tell by the writing style in addtn to the reference.

My guess is that Congress is using this as a ploy as well. Their lack of specificity seems to suggest it. Kinda like a WMD thing.


RE: Typical
By molgenit on 3/14/2008 8:38:35 AM , Rating: 3
Its an election year......that should say it all


RE: Typical
By rsmech on 3/15/2008 5:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
The lobbyist aren't too happy it seems. They must be a little upset & are going to make congress earn their money. Besides it's not given out of kindness, They want results for their money. If the FCC took any of this money to favor certain policy it's a bribe, but it's legal when Congress does it. I think the investigation should be the other way around.


So let me get this straight....
By ice456789 on 3/14/2008 9:20:53 AM , Rating: 4
Congress is investigating someone for flawed management practices.....




RE: So let me get this straight....
By eye smite on 3/14/2008 9:36:07 AM , Rating: 4
Well they have to do something to earn their keep for being elected in the first place.


RE: So let me get this straight....
By fic2 on 3/14/2008 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
I think he was trying to point out the irony...


Hulu > A La Carte
By mikefarinha on 3/14/2008 12:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me, once sites like Hulu come into the mainstream and the majority of people can watch TV shows through their PC in their living room cable company's will be begging to sell you a la carte programming.




RE: Hulu > A La Carte
By drzoo2 on 3/14/2008 12:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly why Net neutrality is so important. Look how the FCC has been dealing with Comcast. If Comcast is allowed to packet shape, they can degrade your access to "Other" online media services. They are in a catch-22 cause they provide access to resources that are in competition with their own. They don't like it. This P2P stuff is just the beginning.
z


RE: Hulu > A La Carte
By AToZKillin on 3/14/2008 2:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, somebody actually comes out and says it! Comcast ISN'T doing this to for the benefit content providers, consumers, or any other interested parties for that matter. It just doesn't like the idea that people are using file-sharing to get content that it charges additionally to provide via cable TV. I agree also that P2P is the beginning. Skype competes directly with their phone service (which I hear has problems, though my sources weren't very specific so I may be completely mistaken), along w/any other programs that allow you to make calls online. Nerf the bandwidth on those as well? Force disconnects w/video chat?


Nice picture.
By BladeVenom on 3/14/2008 6:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
Nice picture to go with that. Something from "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe," would have also been amusing.




By kattanna on 3/14/2008 10:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
else all those emails might suddenly go missing too...




More Competition Please
By blaster5k on 3/14/2008 11:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
I would really like to see better competition for cable/internet services. Prices are getting more and more ridiculous. I'd also like a real effort at having 2-way cable cards so we can have media PCs as all-in-one boxes.

The set top boxes cable companies dish out really suck. They're always on, wasting about $6 a month in electricity. But if you unplug them, your guide is toast. Guide interfaces still suck. They're noisy. They've still got plenty of bugs/crashes. No significant improvements have been made in years. I guess they have no incentive to make them.

Of course, cable companies will claim nobody's interested in cable card and that it's not their fault people aren't flocking over their half-hearted effort.

We need the FCC to really step in here and take action.




I bet..
By CvP on 3/14/2008 2:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
it is COMCAST's doing...they are behind it ;P




The day pigs fly...
By cscpianoman on 3/14/2008 7:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
Is the day there is competition for content providers. Time Warner vs. Cox vs. Comcast. Content improves, prices go down, internet speeds increase, fiber takes over the world, etc.

Is the day the president and congress do something right and do it consistently.

Is the day fanboys all get run over by trucks

Is the day I make a billion dollars. (Hey, I can dream right?)




By phxfreddy on 3/15/2008 1:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
And democrats never do that ! ..... only the dems can get away with accusing Repubs of allowing opinion to "distort" outcomes. Gesus. What is global warming?????? God I must be really slow because I just don't get it.




Cable Business Plan
By ChronosEx42 on 3/16/2008 3:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the newspaper has a better model (at lease the one I used to work for). They charge a low price to read the paper; ($.50, doesn't even cover the paper/ink) and make money from the advertising. I say give us all the channels all the time, what I pay for are those select channels that I like with No Commercials (basic would still have them.) All that potential advertising audience from the 485+ channels can be factored into their ad prices. This will not only make viewers Fine and possibly Dandy, it will set Cable apart from everyone else, and actually compete with 'net TV.

What ever network upgrades this requires will be worth it, isn't every one spouting network upgrade as it is?




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki