[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: Wed, 24 May 2017 08:00:06 -0400
On May 23, 2017, at 9:43 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As always, Craig is utterly confused and clueless. I've always opposed the
national cap, not once local caps. Go ahead and quote anything I ever wrote
that says otherwise, Craig. And then, just to show you know the difference,
tell us what local caps are for.
Thank you for actually answering the question. So bottom line you are saying
that we need caps on the number of stations a company can own in a single
market, but no national cap. Thus the four broadcast networks could buy
stations in every market, leaving Sinclair, Nexstar, et al to program their
stations with original and syndicated content.
Do you see the continued use of local caps causing any problems with the
sharing of multiplexes during a transition to ATSC 3.0?
Should the FCC address the sharing of multiplexes as part of the current NPRM
on station ownership?
The worst thing about this "debate" is the phony pretense. The two sides are
obvious, Craig. One side is the yahoos, who immediately jerk their knee with
any mention of regulation, even when the special interests involved are
monopolies which cannot self-regulate (local monopolies, in this case). And
the other side is not quite so freakishly paranoid, and understands simple
economics.
Yeah that's "fair and balanced."
;-(
But you may be right about the "not so freakishly paranoid, and understands
simple economics." Simple economics come into play when we discuss the role
that regulation plays in choosing winners and losers, that is a light
regulatory touch on one group of companies versus heavy handed regulation of
another.
The major use of customer data is driven by advertising revenues. This is where
the real economic benefits accrue, as we see with the huge business Google has
built by using search data to sell advertising. Or the economic benefits that
accrue to Amazon by using customer data to place advertising in the web sites
they visit.
But the FCC was heading down a path that would have made it illegal to use
customer data to do EXACTLY the same thing by an ISP. Naturally, this is not
what was said to justify the ISP Privacy Regulations that Congress just
revoked. We were told that the ISPs would sell our personal data to the highest
bidder. Never mind that most of what we do on the Internet is not visible to
ISPs, as the content is encrypted - all they see is the routing destinations.
So yes, simple economics are a major part of this debate.
The "optics" here show what you had accused the previous FCC Commissioner of,
but completely without merit. The optics are an FCC in the pocket of the
special interests. Meantime, speaking politically-correct formula, to pretend
you're on the same side as the lefties, but meaning precisely the opposite,
cannot be condoned.
One can make EXACTLY the same argument in reverse. Thus one side may advantage
one group of special interests while the other side advantages a different set
of special interests. Nothing new here, it is the primary job of regulators and
politicians in our dysfunctional crony capitalistic system.
But there is a huge difference in the power that one side has versus the other.
As we have seen, common carrier regulation is accompanied by additional fees,
the need to file paperwork with the FCC, state and local regulators, the need
to gain approval to create new services, and the need for an army of lawyers to
get things done.
Light handed regulation relies on the rule of law, and enforcement when laws
are violated or when one company in a market/service gains monopoly or near
monopoly power. Getting "caught" is still very messy and requires an army of
lawyers to litigate the dispute, but it is far less oppressive in terms of
developing new services and promoting new investments.
You're flat wrong, and we have covered this. The FCC acknowledges that rural
service is costly to provide. I even quoted them on this point, just days ago.
Yes Bert, we saw your irrelevant rants.
Building the infrastructure is expensive; that is why the USF was created. But
once than investment has been made the cost of operating the service is not
significantly different than in urban areas. The rural POTs infrastructure was
paid for in the last century.
At best the only justification for the continued existence of the High Cost
portion of the USF fund is a completely different service: broadband. That is
why this portion of the fund was repurposed as the Connect America Fund several
years ago, and the High Cost fund for POTs service will be phased out in 2018.
As to the rest, Chairman Pai explained the intention of the USF and rate
floor, but then failed miserably when trying to explain why it's not needed
anymore.
You OBVIOUSLY did not read the NPRM or the comments. The whole point of the
freeze of the rate floor at current levels is to determine if the rate floor is
still needed and what if any changes are needed in terms of the use of USF
funds when the rate floor is applied.
If you had read the comments of Clyburn and O'Reilley you would understand that
the commissioners were working out a solution, then Clyburn did a 180.
You're close, but all you need to do is read Chairman Pai's explanation for
this. And you're repeating yourself (see above). Must be very distracted.
I did read his comments. There is NOTHING in those comments that warrants your
reaction.
The High Cost program was created to build out the rural
infrastructure - something it accomplished LONG AGO.
Already covered this. You're full of it, Craig. These things aren't just
built one time and forgotten, plus we now have broadband to deploy in rural
areas.
See above.
Chairman Pai **claims** that he is totally committed to providing broadband
where it is not currently available.
And why do you distrust his intent?
Instead of overly verbose posts that keep going over what we already covered,
it would help if you read things the first time around, Craig.
I did. Now if you would take the time to read all of the linked documents and
attempt to understand what is happening, rather than simply reiterating the
talking points of one side, we might be able to have an intelligent discussion.
Until then, your just another reactionary snowflake...
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:
