Funny How Anti-Regulation Telco Buddy Kevin Martin Is Pro-Regulation When It Comes To Cable

from the should-have-sang-happy-birthday-louder dept

December's almost here, and with it, comes FCC chair Kevin Martin's birthday (December 14th, for those who care). This might not seem like a big deal to many, but it was just a couple years ago that a bunch of telco execs got together to sing Martin happy birthday just as he announced a bunch of policy positions that seemed to support the telcos' every wish. What's most amazing is that whenever he's pushed on telco issues, Martin likes to claim that he's against regulations -- but when it comes to companies that the telcos compete with, he's suddenly much more open to regulations. So, it should come as no surprise that the cable companies (who apparently forgot to send Martin a birthday cake) are about to wake up to a different world order, as Martin plans to make use of a loophole in the law to start regulating the cable companies -- including putting serious restrictions on growth. Now, there's no denying that the cableco's have a cushy position, which they all too often abuse. However, especially with the rise of satellite TV and IPTV, more competition is reaching the market. In the end, this move sounds like not just a way for Martin to hurt the cable companies, but also a way for him finally to force them to offer a la carte channel choices, a favorite of Martin's for years, not because of the importance of more choice, but because it could lead to more family friendly programming. It could very well be that regulation makes the most sense for the cable industry -- but it's hard to see how Martin can claim equal treatment of his friends in the telco industry, who he lets merge with abandon, while telling the cable companies they can't do the same.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 8:24pm

    Follow the money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  

    Hope still alive

    I'm just hoping that the companies throw the most money at the legislation or regulations I want.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 10:11pm

      Re: Hope still alive

      Boy, a capitalist economy sure is a bitch once the rich people start controlling the rules...perhaps if everyone wasn't so obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, we wouldn't have people trying so hard to game the system.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Discovery CH., Nov 12th, 2007 @ 11:29pm

    USA cable is absolutely insanely expencive compare

    USA cable is absolutely insanely expencive compared to EU. With internet and couple movie channels it regulary topples $200 - $250 bill. like TimeWarner monopoly in Orlando metro. Now I get the same choice and selection, for merely 30 euros a month. (max. 90 euros)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Instructor (profile), Nov 13th, 2007 @ 6:27am

      Re: USA cable is absolutely insanely expencive com

      If movies and TV are too expensive, don't buy them. Kinda like the whining I hear about "nothing good on TV", to which I reply, "If you don't like what's on TV, turn it off". I have no sympathy for self-inflicted injury.
      --
      TX CHL Instructor

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Triax, Nov 14th, 2007 @ 9:46am

        Re: Re: USA cable is absolutely insanely expencive

        "If movies and TV are too expensive, don't buy them. Kinda like the whining I hear about "nothing good on TV", to which I reply, "If you don't like what's on TV, turn it off"."

        This argument of "deal with it or leave" is used way to often and is NEVER valid (in the US). The answer to a problem is not simply to look the other way. If you like paying $200 a month for cable and think it's fair, fine. You are most likely in the minority and shouldn't use a canned argument to justify what many see as an outrageous pricing scheme. Cable service has become increasingly expensive even as cable companies have found new sources of revenue without providing any noticeable improvement of service for the past 15 years or longer. Many channels have been added and we now have DVR's and HD, but I see this more as a natural progression to keep them competitive with new technologies. We shouldn't see this price increase and simply accept it but challenge the companies on their bottom line and demand fair pricing. If you don't like someone's opinion of the situation why don't you simply stop reading instead of putting up a comment that is altogether rude and uninformed?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      AC, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 4:02pm

      Re: USA cable is absolutely insanely expencive com

      90 Euros WILL be US $250, by the time Bush leaves office (and retires to Dubai)...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    D, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 1:29am

    The FCC has lost all credibility

    Does anyone feel an independant inquiry is in need?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alfred E. Neuman, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 5:10am

    That's Comcastic

    Cripple Play - Woot

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 6:20am

    Boo hoo. Did you ever see that picture with the little fish being eaten by the bigger fish, who is about to get eaten by a bigger fish... etc. Well welcome to the swimming pool cable companies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    SP, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 6:32am

    "hurt the cable companies..."

    Umm... Why does this article sound like it's in support of the cable monopolies that are charging us $60 a month for BASIC CABLE? It's about time the big greedy cable co's get "hurt." There's a bill we're trying to get passed in WI that will allow for smaller cable companies to rise up, forcing some competition...which will force giants like Time Warner to lower their insane prices in order to keep all their customers from fleeing to the cheaper offerings. I hope the bill passes. I refuse to pay $200 a month for crappy quality TV and Internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 8:00am

    Keep in mind, the telco and cable companies are pretty much in the same consumer business now. The regulation, if any, should be applied broadly to both industries.

    @TX CHL Instructor - Bad analogies make for bad debates. The point that "Discovery CH" was trying to make is that cable is OVERPRICED not expensive. Honestly the cable bill rises much faster than the inflation rate and don't get me started on what is offer to us here in the US as opposed to what a lot of EU is privy to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 8:06am

    "However, especially with the rise of satellite TV and IPTV, more competition is reaching the market."

    Rubbish. *If* satellite is even available (which for many of us it isn't, due to satellite placement problems), that just gives two mediocre choices - hardly "competition", since the cable industry overcharges so badly that the satellite industry can get away with doing almost as badly.

    As for IPTV - where does the pipe come from? That's right, either the cable or phone company, both of whom are allowed to get away with disconnecting people on supposedly "unlimited" plans, for the sin of merely having used the service. IPTV won't be a true competitor until telcos and cable companies are not allowed to use the word "unlimited" in advertising while cutting off people's connection for having used a limited amount of bandwidth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wizard Prang, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 8:42am

    Last time I looked...

    "Happy Birthday" was still under copyright.

    :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Harold Feld, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 10:15am

    Why the problem

    As someone who has worked my ass off for the last 8 years to -- among other things -- try to reign in cable market power, I'm a little surprised to see how people are rushing to the defense of the cable cos.

    Martin's "picking" on cable cos has been actually enforcing the outstanding laws against them that previous FCC's gave them a free ride. This is a bad thing? Oh, Martin has other motives, like pushing cable to do his family programming. And your point is? Sure, politicians act from a combination of motives, pure and impure. But why make it harder to get a good result just because you'd rather Martin was also cracking down in other places.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 4:27pm

      Re: Why the problem

      You speak of working your ass off, albeit getting paid... How about those who have worked just as hard and lose to the FCC's whim's of dereg of ILEC's and be shut out of the broadband business?

      Where was the FCC both former and current enforcing the TA 96, instead of just bowing down to the RBOC's politcal cash and lobbying poundings and granting forebearance like it was holiday candy?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jamie, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 1:04pm

    Martin almost universally advocates the removal of regulatory oversight, claiming the usually conservative claptrap that the government isn't capable of doing anything right (when it is always simply about serving the interest of large corporations).

    In this case, Martin is doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

    The author of the article is pointing out Martin's hypocrisy and poor track record at any legitimate oversight. Martin used to be a lobbyist for the telcos and now he serves at their beck and call. Verizon doesn't want net neutrality? The government must remove extremely successful regulation. Verizon wants to hurt the cable companies? It's time for regulation.

    That's all there is to it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 4:33pm

    The FCC Should Have Nothing to Do With Cable

    It should be the FTC regulating it, with oversight by the now-defunct Congressional OTC.

    But since the difference between airwaves receivable by any common device in the home and cable received by choice has become a moot point, I'd just like to say I hate the idea of a la carte. You will too as soon as a channel you and only a few others enjoy suddenly can't get enough revenue to operate. Comedy Central bundled with FitTV helps keep FitTV on the air. If FitTV gets 100 subscribers in an area of 100,000, it's gone in favor of MTV9 or something. And so will your choice be to maybe one day click over and see what it's all about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    freetalker, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 7:36pm

    post 16 by anon coward

    Amen

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Henry, Nov 14th, 2007 @ 10:35am

    Cable cos.

    I agree there should be cable regulations. Don't blame the cable cos though. The cable cos are really not raking in the money -- they are paying most of it back out to the likes of Viacom who will tell the cable co "You MUST put all these channels on basic, and here's what you will pay for them", with the threat of cutting off Scifi, Comedy Central, MTV, etc. for those who don't comply. My local cable co is fighting right now with Big Ten Network; the cable co wants to put them on a sports tier where they belong, Big Ten says "no, you must put it on basic, and pay $3 per subscriber for the privilege." Guess what? That will make the bill increase another $2 or $3.

    I'm honestly surprised that no cable company is supporting regulation -- providing channels ala carte will be a PITA for them, but it'll break the hold the channel providers have over the cable cos, since this would presumably free the cable cos from having to just have "basic" "expanded basic" and "digital" tiers and put channels on them they don't want to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This