FCC Apparently Not Very Concerned About Consumer Views On Broadband

from the keep-quiet-and-take-what-we-give-you dept

We recently expressed our concerns with the state of the government's attempts to increase broadband in the US. Karl Bode, over at Broadband Reports has now hit quite a homerun with his analysis of 5 signs of why the broadband plan is in trouble. The whole thing is worth reading, but I wanted to highlight number 5 on the list, because it's a big problem:

The FCC continues to hold "workshops" to discuss the direction and scope of the national broadband plan. They're also recording presentations by all of the FCC's "constituents," and offering consumers instantaneous access to all of the documents being presented at the workshop at the Broadband.gov website. All of this is absolutely great. What's not so great?

There are 51 panelists attending the latest 8 workshops. Out of those 51, there are just five people not directly associated with a company: Dave Burstein, Craig Moffett, George Ford, Victor Frost and Henning Schulzrinne. Moffett is a stock jock who's positions (such as upgrades are unnecessary and consumers should be paying more money) are clearly not going to serve anyone but investors. Ford works at the Phoenix Center, an AT&T-funded "think tank," who's job is to parrot AT&T policy positions.

Of the remaining three, only Burstein, a long-time telecom beat reporter, will likely ask any hard questions -- and then again his job is to get scoops, not to represent the public interest. Zero of the originally scheduled attendees acted as public interest witnesses. After complaints by consumer groups, Dr. Mark Cooper from the Consumer Federation Of America was added at the last second, but the fact that this was an afterthought raises questions about how "transparent and inclusive" this process really is.

This definitely seems like politics as usual. And it's a problem, not just for the FCC, but for the very businesses involved in these discussions. Ignoring consumer will these days is increasingly a suicide pact. The businesses leading this discussion would be well-served to look at what's happening in other industries (music, newspapers) where business execs have been trying to ignore consumers' rights and interests, in the belief that they have some sort of monopoly control over their market. Those things can disappear quickly, and when stripped of such artificial protections, it's amazing how fast the consumers you mistreated will move elsewhere.

Filed Under: boondoggle, broadband, broadband policy, broadband stimulus, consumers
Companies: fcc

Why Is The FCC Even Giving The Time Of Day To RIAA's Bogus Radio Witchhunt?

from the waste-of-resources dept

Earlier this year, MusicFirst, a lobbying group that is run by the RIAA and pushing for a special tax on radio stations for daring to promote songs, came out with its latest in a long list of bizarre claims, demanding that the FCC investigate the fact that radio stations were supposedly boycotting musicians who supported the Performance Royalty tax. There were numerous problems with this claim. First, we thought it was rather hypocritical of MusicFirst to demand that radio stations play these artists, when it was the very same MusicFirst that was also claiming that radio was "a kind of piracy" for playing the music of these very same artists without paying a performance tax.

So, apparently if a radio station does play these artists, it's piracy. If it doesn't play these artists, it requires an FCC investigation.

Beyond that, MusicFirst failed to note that many of the artists topping the charts (including the Black Eyed Peas, who topped the charts at the time) were some of the most outspoken artists in favor of this tax. If there was some big conspiracy to not play these artists on the radio, someone forgot to tell... well... pretty much every radio station around.

That highlighted the third problem: MusicFirst didn't happen to point to any radio station that actually did this. The only one that could be dug up was a small high school radio station that had publicly boycotted artists supporting such a tax (which would have shut down the radio station), but only did so for one month and that month happened two years ago, and was a clearly supported expression of free speech.

And that brings up the final point. The recording industry has no right to demand that radio stations play certain artists. A radio station is free to play whatever artists they wish and run whatever commercial they wish. This is a pure free speech issue, and it's quite troubling that the recording industry is targeting radio stations when they have no right over this.

Based on all of this, you would hope that the FCC would simply laugh off the petition... but tragically, it's opened up a consultation on the matter and is asking for public input (found via Michael Scott). The article linked here goes through all of the First Amendment questions raised by this, and notes (thankfully) that the FCC seems to recognize those issues as well. But, if that's the case, why even bother holding this investigation in the first place?

Filed Under: bailout, high school radio, performance rights act, piracy, radio
Companies: fcc, musicfirst, riaa, soundexchange

Apple's Google Voice Rejection Wakes Up A Dormant FCC; Investigation Begins

from the whoops dept

We've had a bunch of stories about Apple's rather arbitrary nature in rejecting iPhone apps it doesn't like -- including ones where it claims that they're not allowed because they compete with Apple. However, Apple's recent decision to reject Google's Voice application didn't just attract general public interest in Apple's policies, it appears to have awoken the latest crop of FCC bosses. Yes, the FCC has requested more info from Apple, AT&T and Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google app. I wonder how the random Apple drone who made that decision is feeling right now?

Either way, this isn't good for anyone. The FCC's reasoning is that it:

"has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment."

That's actually a bit of a stretch on the FCC's actual mandate. And as ridiculous as I think Apple's actions are here, having the FCC get involved doesn't seem good for anyone either. The FCC shouldn't be involved in deciding what applications get put on phones. Apple's decision has angered a bunch of people, with some swearing off the iPhone because of it. In those cases, those people have other options and other phones to go to. The situation doesn't require the FCC to get involved. It should just require Apple coming to its senses and getting rid of its silly policy of outright rejections of apps it doesn't like.

Filed Under: app store, fcc, gogle voice, iphone, rejection
Companies: apple, at&t, fcc, google

FCC Considers Propping Up Old School Journalism, As Copps Blames The Internet And Bloggers

from the say-what-now? dept

Citizen Media Law alerts us to a rather troubling "state of the media journalism" report issued by FCC commissioner Michael Copps. While the report doesn't really mean anything right now, it's seen as an indicator of where the FCC may go in its rule-making process. And if that's the case, it's quite troubling, though the old school newspaper folks screaming for protection may find it comforting. Basically, it focuses on "the decline of traditional print and broadcast outlets" and seems to blame the combination of "the internet and bloggers" with the deregulation of media ownership.

This makes almost no sense, and is, in fact, contradictory. The rise of "the internet and bloggers" has massively increased the diversity of people involved in reporting and distributing the news. The barriers of entry to being a journalist have been lowered to almost nothing at all, and people have flooded the market. Copps views that as a problem, but apparently doesn't note the total contradiction in then immediately lamenting the decrease in diversity of journalists in traditional media jobs:

"We're not only losing journalists, we may be losing journalism," he said. "Some blame the Internet and bloggers, and that's certainly a part of the story. All that consolidation and mindless deregulation, rather than reviving the news business, condemned us to less real news, less serious political coverage, less diversity of opinion, less minority and female ownership, less investigative journalism and fewer jobs for journalists."

What's really troubling is that he seems to think this is a problem that the FCC needs to fix. This certainly seems to go well beyond the FCC's mandate, and it takes an impressive amount of conceptual blindness not to see that the solution is exactly what he described was a part of the problem.

Filed Under: journalism, media, michael copps, newspapers
Companies: fcc

Supreme Court Says FCC Can Fine Fleeting Expletives... For Now

from the next-up,-first-amendment-question dept

The FCC, under former chair Kevin Martin, suddenly took a much greater interest in fining network TV broadcasters for "fleeting expletives" -- generally live performances in which someone uttered a curse word. Prior to that, the FCC had generally ignored such "fleeting" uses and focused on more significant violations. So, when the FCC suddenly changed its policies and fined some TV networks, they sued, complaining that the change was arbitrary. In 2007, an appeals court agreed, calling the policy arbitrary and capricious. However, the Supreme Court has now reversed that, saying that it's within the FCC's power to make the determination of what policy it follows in regulating broadcast content.

However, the case is far from over. So far, this part of the case has only focused on whether or not the rule change was allowed. What hasn't been explored is that, if the rule change is allowed, is that new rule unconstitutional (as a violation of the First Amendment). That's the real question -- so all this stuff about whether the policy was arbitrary and capricious was more like the opening act for the First Amendment headliner that's about to happen. The case has now been sent back to the appeals court, where the free speech implications will be reviewed.

In the meantime, I'm still wondering why the liability should be on the broadcasters in the first place. If Cher or Nicole Ritchie utter a curse word while on live TV, how is that the network's fault? Beyond just the free speech questions, I'm trying to figure out why the liability should be on the networks at all.

Filed Under: fines, first amendment, fleeting expletives, free speech, supreme court
Companies: fcc, fox

NAB Cries To The Court About White Spaces Spectrum Plans

from the same-old-story dept

One of the better decisions to come out of the FCC during Kevin Martin's reign was the decision to free up the "white spaces" spectrum that lies in between TV broadcasts for other uses. The white spaces are unused spectrum that sit in between TV broadcasters' signals. They were important in analog broadcasts to keep stations' signals from interfering with each other, but they are less crucial in digital broadcasts (like the ones the US will eventually switch to). White spaces proponents say that they can effectively be reused by unlicensed devices that can seek out empty spectrum and use it to communicate, without interfering with licensed broadcasts, and the FCC concurred -- and, of course, made that a key part of its approval of the technologies. But as ever, the National Association of Broadcasters disagrees, and has sued to block usage of the white spaces, arguing it will interfere with their members' broadcasts.

We might be more sympathetic to the NAB's claim if it didn't have such a long and glorious history of trying to stifle anything that competes with incumbent broadcasters, and have such an annoying way of doing it. The FCC has put significant stipulations in place to ensure that white space devices don't cause interference, and despite the NAB's contention, the prototypes that failed in the testing process didn't do so. The FCC got it right by approving use of the white spaces with the restrictions and rules it put in place to tame interference; the NAB has once again got it wrong by trying to stifle innovation, and perhaps competition.

Filed Under: interference, lawsuits, spectrum, white space
Companies: fcc, nab

FCC Says Not So Fast To TV Stations' Itchy Switch Fingers

from the not-completely-surprising dept

The digital TV transition mess rolls on. After lots of TV stations said they planned to move ahead with the shutdown of their analog broadcasts, as the recently passed delay allows them to do, the FCC is now telling more than a quarter of them they can't do so without first meeting a number of regulations. The FCC contends (PDF alert, thanks to Fat Tony for sending it in) that 123 stations' plans to switch their analog signals off soon pose "a significant risk of substantial public harm," not because people who haven't figured out the switch was coming will miss Judge Judy and Wheel of Fortune, but because they need their TVs for access to "local news and public affairs."

The regulations say that one station in the broadcasters' metro areas must maintain analog service until at least the middle of April, but also that the stations must increase their "educational" programming about the switchover, and also provide both "local or toll-free telephone assistance, including engineering support" and "provide a location and staff for a consumer 'walk-in' center to assist consumers with applying for coupons and obtaining converter boxes, to demonstrate how to install converter boxes, to provide maps and lists of communities that maybe affected by coverage issues, and to serve as a redistribution point for consumers who are willing to donate coupons, converter boxes, televisions and for those in need of these items."

If this didn't involve the government, it would almost be remarkable. The government botched the converter coupon program, has caused more confusion with the delay, and now wants TV stations to set up call centers and walk-in locations to deal with it. What's even more galling is that stations will be forced to toss resources at an issue that effects a small sliver of the population: take the small subset of Americans that watch TV, but don't have cable or satellite, then the subset of those that haven't yet gotten with the program. From those few people that are left standing, will they be any more ready in June than they would be on the 17th, when the switchover was supposed to happen? And why should broadcasters have to devote so many resources to them, particularly when it's the bungled coupon program that's largely to blame?

Filed Under: confusion, digital tv, fcc
Companies: fcc

Cox Gets Aggressive With Traffic Shaping

from the taunting-the-fcc dept

In a move that's basically baiting the FCC and Congress to see if they will act, Cox has announced that it's going to experiment with rather aggressive traffic shaping, granting priority to bits that it feels have a great priority. Why Cox gets to describe what gets a priority and what doesn't seems pretty questionable. Cox is also the company that implemented a three strikes policy on file sharing without telling anyone.

To be honest, this seems like a really tone deaf move by Cox -- and I'd imagine that plenty of telcos and cable companies are pissed off about Cox calling extra attention to the topic right now. There's been plenty of talk of new net neutrality regulations in Congress, and with Cox putting the issue so squarely on the table, it's as if they're begging for such regulations (or at least to be slapped down by the FCC). You would think they would at least wait until it wasn't an issue getting so much attention before drawing extra scrutiny and daring regulators to act.

Filed Under: net neutrality, regulation, traffic shaping
Companies: cox, fcc

FCC Again Wants Details From Comcast On Its Traffic-Shaping Efforts

from the fool-me-once... dept

Comcast has already been slapped down -- well, slapped on the wrist, anyway -- by the FCC for violating Commission rules with its traffic-shaping efforts, and it could be on its way for a second rebuke. The FCC has asked Comcast for some more details on its newest "congestion management" system, which throttles heavy users' speeds for periods of time. As part of the penalty for its previous infraction, Comcast had to file details of the new system with the FCC, and the commission know wants to know if Comcast treats traffic from its own VoIP system differently than traffic from competing providers' VoIP services. The company apparently advertises the fact that its VoIP service doesn't get affected by heavy network traffic and slowdowns, giving the impression that it degrades other VoIP traffic in this new system, while leaving traffic from its service alone. This will be an interesting test of the new FCC administration, to see how it handles these sorts of complaints compared to its predecessor. It could also set an important precedent, because it sounds like Comcast handles its own VoIP traffic in a way similar to other cable companies, by setting aside a portion of bandwidth that's managed separately from a subscriber's internet traffic.

Filed Under: blocking content, fcc, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast, fcc

Kevin Martin Agrees To Drop Filters From Free Wireless Web

from the still-doesn't-have-much-support dept

M2Z's big plan to provide wireless internet to the entire country, if the FCC would just hand over free spectrum, never made all that much sense to us. Yes, the country could have a much better broadband infrastructure, and there are some interesting possibilities in the wireless space, but simply handing over a bunch of spectrum to a single startup company with a promise to provide free wireless to most of the country just seems like a boondoggle. There's little evidence that the plan would work or that it is even necessary. So, it seemed good that the plan went down in flames earlier this month -- though, most of the criticism was focused on the pointless requirement for anti-smut filters on the free connectivity.

However, Kevin Martin is making some news today by telling everyone who will listen that he's willing to drop the filters part if he can get the rest approved. This is a little surprising from Martin, as he's been a pretty big anti-smut crusader in his role at the FCC, but perhaps he's looking to leave a legacy beyond "AT&T lackey" now that he's about to leave the FCC. It still doesn't appear that he has the support to push this through, but that could change. Still, it would be good if someone (anyone?) could explain why it makes sense to just give a single company this spectrum without any clear reason why it should get the spectrum or proof that it can provide what it wants to provide in a reasonable manner? We've seen tons of promises about broadband wireless over the years from upstarts and very few have gone anywhere. Before just handing over valuable spectrum to one provider, why not see if (a) it's actually necessary and (b) if the company in question can actually provide what it claims it will provide.

Filed Under: broadband, kevin martin, wireless
Companies: fcc, m2z