[opendtv] Re: Painful explanation of TVE
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:53:46 -0500
On Mar 8, 2016, at 9:32 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Perhaps, but my view is that this is the result of legacy thinking, not a
deliberate attempt to regulate what doesn't need regulating. Legacy thinking
meaning, they cannot wrap their heads around the functionality changes
introduced when using the Internet. They're still thinking in terms of
locally monopolistic walled gardens.
The entire country is suffering from "legacy thinking" Bert. The regulators do
not view "change" from your perspective. They view it as an opportunity to
create new regulations.
Why do you think people are turning out in record numbers to vote in the
Republican primaries?
Regulation is a major component of the problem, not just at the FCC, but across
the entire economy. Some of this is the result of the executive branch
over-reaching when Congress refuses to legislate. Much more is the result of
legislation that leaves tremendous latitude in the hands of the executive
branch.
As an example, we have seen this play out with Obamacare, where much of the
implementation was left to the departments involved in the implementation, and
the chief executive simply ignored legislated deadlines when convenient.
We keep hearing the term "the establishment" thrown around, and there is more
than a grain of truth to it. When it is projected that this national election
cycle will cost in excess of $4 billion, the first thing we need to ask is how
is "the establishment" raising all that money?
Obviously the answer is that they are beholden to special interests and guided
by their K Street lawyers. With respect to the FCC, I saw this first hand and
"played the game," with the development of the U.S. DTV standard.
I spent many days working with FCC lawyers and engineers, and more than a few
hours interviewing and lobbying FCC Commissioners. I attended multiple
Congressional hearings. And I spent three years attending meetings for which
the outcomes were decided in advance in K Street offices.
In the end the special interests got the standard hey wanted and a government
mandate to require a device with their IP in very TV. A device that has never
been used by the vast majority of consumers have never used.
The "local monopolostic walled gardens" are yet another manifestation of
government regulation that began more than a century ago, when the special
interests convinced the politicians to create "natural monopolies." The need to
use public right of ways, and to attach to the poles owned by existing utility
monopolies, gave local governments the power to create the cabled walled
gardens.
We complain about the runaway inflation in cable rates, which have been made
possible by a gaping loophole in the legislation passed to give governments the
power to regulate cable rates. But we don't hear much about the taxes that are
imposed on this service. At least these taxes and fees are itemized on my cable
bill:
FCC fee: $0.08
State Communications Service Tax: $6.32
Local Communications Service Tax: $5.86
State Sales Tax: $0.51
Total: $12.77/month
And then there is the broadcast surcharge: $3
This surcharge is the result of retransmission consent, which was enabled in
the 1992 Cable (re-regulation ) Act. That act also included the loophole that
allowed cable rates to keep rising, giving the content congloms the ability to
take over MVPD systems by creating new channels for the past 20+ years.
Unfortunately, the MVPDs do not need to break-out the subscriber fees we pay
for the bundles of channels we are forced to buy from each content conglom,
even if we only want one of those channels.
Bottom line, governments at all levels still think in terms of "local
monopolistic walled gardens," because that is how they get their pounds of
flesh. It is no small coincidence that the FCC turned to Title II regulation of
broadband, based on the canard of network neutrality.
Thing is, regulation *is* needed, when there is no, or inadequate,
competition. So all these FCC rules made sense, in the days of walled-in,
local monopolies. The difference now is that the network is a two-way
network, no single head-end gatekeepers exist any longer (over broadband
anyway), so retaining that regulation, to ensure everyone can get content, is
pointless. The two-way net is neutral, and ubiquitous, the sources of content
are as numerous as the content owners decide, and available to whoever wants
to see. Competition has a funny way of making regulations unnecessary.
So it looks like Bert is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand he
tells us that regulation is no longer needed because of the Internet. Then he
tells us that regulation of the Internet is required in order to ensure Network
Neutrality.
Catch 22!
The reality is we will continue to have both, with the FCC moving to extend its
ability to regulate the content delivered over the "neutral" Internet.
So, to me, that statement was not crystal clear. I saw, instead, a somewhat
inaccurate portrayal of what the VMVPD NPRM was proposing, and opposition to
regulation in general, but without an explanation of why it's not needed now.
E.g., the VMVPD NPRM did not state that all OTT sites would become VMVPDs,
for instance. More importantly, the whole VMVPD-that-looks-like-a-legacy-MVPD
is just silliness. The *inevitable* competition, afforded by the neutral
2-way Internet, obsoletes that idea tout de suite.
It was a NPRM Bert. An FCC process to ask the interests that will be impacted
by new FCC regulations to comment. We do not know what these regulations will
entail. O'Reilly is warning us what his peers are contemplating...
You need look no further than the recent Report and Order on Commercial
Availability of Navigation Devices to see how regulations grow from initial
proposals to actual orders.
You are hopelessly naive' if you believe that governments at all levels will
walk away from regulation in order to create an environment more conducive to
competition.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: