Techdirt. Stories about "ncta" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories about "ncta"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:22:12 PST Cable Industry Finally Admits That Data Caps Have Nothing To Do With Congestion Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable-industry-finally-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable-industry-finally-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml this was bogus, and there was no data crunch coming. If you actually caught a technologist from a broadband provider, rather than a business person or lobbyist, they'd quietly admit that there was no congestion problem, and that basic upgrades and network maintenance could easily deal with the growth in usage. But, of course, that took away the broadband providers' chief reason for crying about how they "need" data caps. The reality, of course, is that data caps are all about increasing revenue for broadband providers -- in a market that is already quite profitable. But if they can hide behind the claims that they need to do this to deal with congestion, they can justify it to regulators and (they hope) the public.

Of course, enough people have been calling this explanation out as completely bogus that it appears that even the broadband companies' own lobbyists may finally be dropping this line of reasoning. Former FCC boss Michael Powell, who is now the cable industry's chief lobbyist (president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association -- NCTA), has finally admitted caps aren't about congestion:
Michael Powell told a Minority Media and Telecommunications Association audience that cable's interest in usage-based pricing was not principally about network congestion, but instead about pricing fairness...Asked by MMTC president David Honig to weigh in on data caps, Powell said that while a lot of people had tried to label the cable industry's interest in the issue as about congestion management. "That's wrong," he said. "Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost."
Of course, as Broadband Reports notes, Powell is jumping from one myth (congestion) to another (fairness) that is just as ridiculous. If it was true, we'd see at least some prices going down. But we don't.
Except the argument that usaged pricing is about fairness has been just as repeatedly debunked. If usage caps were about "fairness," carriers would offer the nation's grandmothers a $5-$15 a month tier that accurately reflected her twice weekly, several megabyte browsing of the Weather Channel website. Instead, what we most often see are low caps and high overages layered on top of already high existing flat rate pricing, raising rates for all users. Does raising rates on a product that already sees 90% profit margins sound like "fairness" to you?
Data caps are about one thing only: increasing profits for the broadband providers, who already have massive control over the market with limited competition. It's nice to see them give up on one myth (even if we still see pundits repeating it without criticism), but it would be nice if we could get past the others as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> of-course-not http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130118/17425221736 Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:57:34 PST Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/00060613076/cable-hollywood-fight-having-their-gatekeeper-status-taken-away.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/00060613076/cable-hollywood-fight-having-their-gatekeeper-status-taken-away.shtml fighting as hard as possible to stop an FCC proposal to create a standard, called AllVid, that would allow any consumer electronics maker to tap into their content (legally, and for those actually subscribed), and display it via the device. Right now, of course, if you get cable TV, you're limited to the hardware they give you, which means if they don't want to let some other manufacturer come in with a more innovative system, you're stuck. Google -- who is pushing its Google TV product, and Sony, who has a variety of plans for set-top boxes, would prefer a standard so that they can sell you the boxes, and you can access the TV content you're already subscribed to, along with wider content from the internet.

But, if there's one thing that's become clear over the years, it's that gatekeepers will go to amazing lengths to keep those gates in place. So while the FCC seems very interested in moving forward on such a standard, NCTA has announced that it will pretty much destroy all of civilization:
Sony/Google are asking the Commission to ignore copyright, patent, trademark, contract privity, licensing, and other legal rights and limitations that have been thoroughly documented.
Of course, almost none of that is actually true, but boy does it sound impressive. Sony and Google aren't asking for any of those things. They're simply asking for a way that they can provide devices that can tap into an account holder's legally authorized content, and add additional services around it. Think of it like a Carterphone for cable TV -- meaning that you no longer have to get your phone from AT&T, but can buy a third party phone.

But, of course, even the MPAA is against that, as it's siding with the NCTA with a "but... but... piracy!" argument that also makes no sense:
"legitimate MVPD and online content sources will be presented in user interfaces alongside illegitimate sources (such as sites featuring pirated content)," MPAA warns. "In essence, this 'shopping mall' approach could enable the purveyor of counterfeit goods to set up shop alongside respected brand-name retailers, causing consumer confusion."
Yes, think about what you're reading for a second, and then shake your head at the level of confusion coming out of the MPAA. They want to block an FCC plan to make it easier to access authorized and legitimate content, because it's also easy to access pirated content. In the MPAA's twisted view of the world, it's better to leave just the pirated content as easy to access, because if the authorized content was just as easy to access, people might think it's legit. Are they really serious over there?

Who knows where all of this will lead, but the key thing that becomes clear in all of this is that cable does not want to give up its gatekeeper status. Even though a system that would better integrate cable content with additional internet content would clearly be a benefit to consumers, it would also mean a loss of gates, and we're dealing with yet another industry that incorrectly thinks it needs gates to survive. So, rather than add value to the consumer experience, it's actively fighting against it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> inevitable-is-coming http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110214/00060613076 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:22:00 PST Cable Lobbyist Says Net Neutrality Violates The First Amendment Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/1334557299.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/1334557299.shtml principle of network neutrality is important, and that it would be a serious mistake for ISPs to look to erode it. Basically, the issue is a lot more nuanced than it is often made out to be. But one thing that is quite clear is that some of the claims on all sides of the debate have gone to ridiculous levels. You may recall, for example, the flat out lie by lobbyist Mike McCurry, saying that Google paid nothing for bandwidth and its push for net neutrality was to keep getting bandwidth for free. That's a complete lie.

And now, a whole bunch of you have sent in the story about how a top cable industry lobbyist, Kyle McSlarrow, of the NCTA, is claiming that any net neutrality mandate would violate ISP's First Amendment rights. What he doesn't explain is how. And that's because he can't. He stacks a few different concepts on top of one another to argue that net neutrality could prevent cable companies from "delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service." Except, there's nothing in the suggested FCC mandates that would do that. And even if it did, it's still difficult to see how it would be a First Amendment violation.

There are tons of very good reasons why we might want to avoid mandating net neutrality through law. But arguing that it will be a First Amendment violation isn't one of them... and it makes me wonder why lobbyists fighting against the regulations keep bringing up such bad arguments.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> how? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091210/1334557299 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:55:00 PST Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0740516984.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0740516984.shtml supports breaking your DVR in a misguided effort to add more windows to movie releases. Not surprisingly, he simply repeats the MPAA's flat out lies and misrepresentations on this particular issue. For example, he claims that the movie studios need this or they won't get content out to the industry early enough. But that's wrong. There is nothing stopping the movie studios from releasing content whenever they would like. In fact, we've already seen that some of the major studios are releasing movies in exactly this manner (prior to DVD release), despite claiming that it's impossible to do so without enabling this form of DRM.

If the movie industry wants to add a new window where they release movies for pay-per-view offerings before they come out on DVD, there is nothing stopping them from doing so today. Nothing.

The claim that this is about preventing "piracy" is flat out bogus. Even the movie studios themselves claim that nearly every movie is already "pirated" by the time the movies hit the theaters. And these pay-per-view offerings (they like to call them video on demand, but it's really pay per view) are for a window later than the theater release. So the movies will already be available via unauthorized channels. That won't change at all.

So, what are we left with? The two main arguments simply don't make sense at all. There's nothing stopping the studios from adding this window now. And enabling selectable output control (SOC) to stop your DVR from recording these movies won't do a damn thing to reduce unauthorized file sharing of the same content. The only thing it will serve to do is make legitimate customers pissed off, because they'll be confused and annoyed when the DVR they purchased to record what comes out of their TV sets refuses to record this movie that they legally are accessing, but want to time shift (which, again, is perfectly legal).

Contrary to the MPAA and the NCTA's bogus claims, this has nothing to do with enabling some "awesome" new service. This has everything to do with trying to lock down your TV and DVR in an age when consumers are finally getting back some control. What's amusing, of course, is that this comes just as the TV industry is finally realizing that letting consumers do what they wanted with DVRs didn't harm the TV industry, but helped it. One of these days, maybe the MPAA and the NCTA will come to that realization as well. In the meantime, though, they want to get a foot in the door to let them stop your DVR from working as advertised, in the misguided belief that they need to push back on what legitimate consumers want to do with the content they watch.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> without-any-reason http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091118/0740516984 Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:01:39 PDT Cable Lobbyists Side With MPAA On Getting Permission To Break Your TV Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090918/0205336236.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090918/0205336236.shtml break your TV with Selectable Output Control, it's picked up an unsurprising ally. Cable companies. NCTA, the lobbying group that represents the cable industry has come out in favor of the request, claiming that it will let them offer movies earlier. This is a myth that they want regulators to believe. The MPAA and cable companies could offer up movies whenever they want. They just don't want people to record them, because they want to introduce yet another annoying window. So, they declare that they need to break your TV and DVR from recording. Hopefully, the FCC knows better than to break TVs and piss off so many people just because Hollywood is upset some people will want to record movies.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> not-really-a-surprise http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090918/0205336236