[opendtv] Re: The FCC defeated multicast must-carry
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:20:20 -0500
At 1:44 PM -0500 2/10/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>So the FCC under Powell managed to defeat not only
>multicast must carry but also dual must carry.
Defeat?
How can you defeat something that does not exist?
This issue was decided in 2001. All of the current bluster was about
trying to overturn that decision.
As the decision handed down yesterday notes, the enabling legislation
does NOT support dual carriage or the carriage of multicasts. If the
NAB and its cronies have any hope of changing the status quo, they
must convince Congress to legislate multicast carriage.
>And
>it introduced some common sense into the meaning
>of 85 percent in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. And
>it introduced some common sense in understanding
>the real effect of unbundling the local loop, instead
>of giving in to hysteria so popular with lawmakers
>and trade journal scribes.
What common sense? From here, nothing has changed. Ferree is leaving.
His plan is nothing more than shredded paper now. Again, it is up to
Congress to change the rules. There is nothing ambiguous about the
85% rule that was attached to the 1997 budget. If Congress want's the
spectrum back, they will need to change the law, or wait several
decades.
>
>Powell's FCC tried to bring some common sense into
>the national cap restrictions, and did manage to
>inch that figure up a notch.
No Bert. Congress inched the figure up a notch, NOT the FCC. And they
did this because several of the congloms were ALREADY over the 35%
cap.
Al that the FCC did was provide more work for attorneys in
Washington. Lot's of work!
>
>Questionable is the implementation of the broadcast
>flag. In the sense that while the words used by the
>FCC to describe the effect they want, as mere words,
>are sensible enough, but they seem almost impossible
>to turn into workable products.
Yes, it is questionable whether they had the authority to impose this.
>Questionable is the outrage over a laughable wardrobe
>malfunction.
Rules are rules. By this logic it must be ok to steal copyrighted
content...RIGHT?
The FCC had little choice, given the numbers of complaints that were
filed. And it is obvious that Congress was upset too. Upset enough
that they are going to authorized a huge increase in the fines that
the FCC can impose for violating their rules.
>
>Questionable too is the double standard applied to
>VoIP as opposed to what the telcos are required to
>provide with telephone service.
>
>Overall, I'll be sorry to see him leave. Like his
>father, he was a voice of reason in a place that
>needs reason a lot.
Like others in the administration, Powell may well have been involved
in a classic rope-a-dope scheme. The FCC had no choice but to move on
ALL of the items that Bert listed. The courts were demanding rulings
on many of these issues. Activist courts who wanted the FCC to
regulate well beyond the scope of the authorizing legislation for the
rules that were being challenged.
What Powell has done is set the stage for the next re-write of the
Communications Act (the 2006 version). All of the key choke-point
issue are now on the table. Now we will see who has the lobbying
clout and money to screw things up for another 10 years, when the
Telecommunications act of 2016 will be re-written.
Maybe by then, there will be a serious discussion about turning off NTSC...
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:
