[opendtv] Re: Sinclair's TV deal would be good for Trump. And his new FCC is clearing the way.
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 07:14:22 -0400
On May 21, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Monty Solomon posted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/sinclairs-tv-deal-would-be-good-for-trump-and-his-new-fcc-is-clearing-the-way/2017/05/11/66391702-34de-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html
I suppose that as long as we still have the local caps, this is not a
problem. Sinclair is not the only broadcast station group in a market, hence
other voices can still be heard (in every market).
Why do we need local caps Bert?
You have been outspoken about the need for localism for years...
Why do you favor caps now?
I haven't seen anything yet that removes the local caps. Although the UHF
discount should probably go. But as always, the arguments we hear from the
FCC, these days, are frequently disingenuous, or downright phony. The logic
of retaining the UHF discount, from this FCC so interested in abolishing old
rules, sounds like just another example.
Maybe you should wait until they actually have the proceeding on ownership caps
and cross ownership (e.g. Newspapers) before you descend into your usual
tirades about "this FCC."
One glaring example is the one about the rate floor for rural service.
What the hell does this have to do with broadcast ownership caps?
You are behaving like the mass media, making inappropriate analogies - not to
mention that what you say below his just plain wrong.
Those opposing the rate floor, aside from today's FCC, are rural customers or
interest groups, who want lower rates. The current floor is $18/mo, and they
feel that's excessive. Well once again, if that rate floor is lowered, then
unless the USF is increased, rural service will suffer. It's obvious.
Rural telephone service is not going to suffer Bert. The only possible change
is how much rural customers will have to pay for this absurdly overpriced and
overtaxed service.
Funny that you did not take the bait and talk about the FACT that Magic Jack
can avoid the FCC regulatory morass, and the taxes, simply by offering a
internet based VOIP service, which by necessity MUST interconnect with the
legacy common carrier telephone infrastructure.
Tell it like it is, FCC. Tell the people that you want to increase their
monthly taxes on telecom services, to defray the lost revenue from rural
customers.
What bullshit!
How about telling us why we still need a USF fund at all. Tell us why the taxes
on Cox VOIP service are very close to the $18/mo that the rural subsidized
customer pays. Tell us why a common carrier must pay a team of lawyers to
interact with the FCC, State regulators and local regulators to comply with the
regulatory morass?
Or tell the American people that we should not care whether rural communities
get degraded telephone service. Pretending to agree that rural service is too
expensive, and then working against keeping it at all viable, **makes no
sense**.
You mean like the fake news that revoking the Open Internet Order is going to
kill net neutrality?
You continue to be the senior "poster child" for unnatural monopolies and
oppressive government regulation.
Ditto for the extreme right yahoos who immediately begin talking about
handouts. Stop and engage the brain, before you go on. Did you not read
Chairman Pai's rhetoric? He wants to lower the price to rural customers, and
you claim to agree with him? Have you no sense of logic? Phooonieees!
Talk about **makes no sense**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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:
