A Massive Cable Industry Disinformation Effort Just Crushed The FCC's Plan For Cable Box Competition

from the thanks-for-'helping' dept

Back in February the FCC proposed a new plan to bring competition to the cable box. Under the plan, cable providers would need to provide their programming to third party hardware vendors without the need for a CableCARD. The goal? Bring some competition to bear on a stagnant, captive market, resulting in cheaper, more open, and higher quality cable boxes. But because the plan would demolish $21 billion in rental fees while eroding sector control, the cable industry launched one of the most unprecedented lobbying and disinformation efforts I've ever seen in 16 years of covering the sector.

Politicians loyal to the cable industry wrote letters lambasting the FCC for "jeopardizing the incredible evolution of video distribution services," falsely comparing the idea to Popcorn Time. A flood of editorials magically began appearing in newspapers country wide claiming the FCC's plan would boost piracy, hurt consumer privacy, and even "steal the future." The cable sector even trotted out Jesse Jackson, who claimed in a horribly misleading op-ed that increased cable box competition was akin to the "snarling dogs, water hoses and church bombings" of America's racist history. Seriously.

Of course given our news outlets don't think it's particularly important to highlight financial conflicts of interest, most of these editorials were presented as purely objective insight into the FCC's proposal. Even the US Copyright Office joined the festivities, falsely claiming the FCC's plan would "interfere with copyright owners' rights to license their works as provided by copyright law" despite IP experts stating it would do nothing of the sort.

And this cavalcade of lobbying, disinformation, and hand-wringing worked absolute wonders.

Apparently informed by all the wrong people, FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn began waffling after voting yes on the original proposal. That forced FCC boss Tom Wheeler to scrap his original plan, releasing a revamped, weaker app-based alternative proposal based largely on the cable industry's recommendations. Despite this new plan effectively being their idea, cable companies like Comcast still complained, falsely claiming the FCC's plan would "stop the apps revolution dead in its tracks by imposing an overly complicated government licensing regime and heavy-handed regulation in a fast-moving technological space."

Yes, because when I think about "fast moving" innovation, the dusty old cable box with its circa-1998 GUI is usually the first thing to come to mind.

As a result of this collective feigned hysteria, when the FCC's latest plan for cable box competition went up for a vote yesterday morning, the agency found it no longer had the votes to move forward. Wheeler and Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel issued a joint statement that goes out of its way to avoid noting that Wheeler lost his fellow commissioners' support:

"We have made tremendous progress—and we share the goal of creating a more innovative and inexpensive market for these consumer devices," Chairman Tom Wheeler and fellow Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel said today in a joint statement. "We are still working to resolve the remaining technical and legal issues and we are committed to unlocking the set-top box for consumers across this country."

By "technical and legal issues" the FCC means it no longer had the votes to move forward after Commissioners buckled under the pressure of a tidal wave of bullshit. And while the FCC says the plan will "remain under consideration," it's entirely possible that the entire effort just died a quiet death in committee. That's not the end of the world given the cable industry (and the cable box) will likely implode on its own in the face of streaming competitors, and it might make more sense for the FCC to use its regulatory calories on things like broadband competition and usage caps anyway.

That said, the cable industry's ability to manipulate the public, press, and regulators in this fashion isn't our nation's finest hour. And while it's possible the FCC could revisit the vote, the end product may be so watered down as to be useless for consumers. Believing they've done yeoman's work in defending the cable industry's walled garden empires, some politicians took to applauding Rosenworcel's expected decision to "stand up for content creators" in voting down the FCC plan:Comcast also was quick to applaud the FCC for heeding the call of the sound wall of "respected third parties" opposed to the FCC's plan:

"The FCC made the right decision this morning to delay its vote on the set-top box item. It is now critical that the Commission heed the bipartisan calls of dozens of Members of Congress and respected third parties and release its new proposal and associated rules to allow the public to provide comment...Based on the limited information available from the Chairman’s Fact Sheet and op-ed, a broad range of content creators, civil rights organizations, labor unions, and others have concluded that the Chairman’s new approach does not solve the copyright, privacy, innovation and other significant concerns that were implicated in his discredited original proposal – and suffers from the same legal infirmities."

Right, but again, that's bullshit. Most of the opponents listed by Comcast were paid by the cable, broadcast and entertainment industries in one form or another to falsely malign the plan. The plan doesn't hurt copyright, it doesn't hurt privacy, and it certainly doesn't harm racial diversity. What it would harm is the cable and entertainment industry's monopoly over cable hardware, and the $21 billion in captive revenues it enjoys annually. It would also most certainly harm the walled garden that consistently protects the cable sector from pesky things like consumer choice.

While Wheeler today proclaimed that the delayed vote was "simply a matter of running out of time," it was notably more than that. It was another disgusting example of how the US Copyright Office frequently fights against the best interest of the public, regulators aren't getting sound advice, media outlets are thrilled to regurgitate pay-to-play industry garbage as objective insight, and Congress remains happy and willing to prioritize campaign contributions over consumer welfare. Wonderful job, everybody. Kudos all around.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, copyright office, disinformation, fcc, set top boxes, tom wheeler

ISP Feebly Tries To Defend Usage Caps By Comparing Them To...Oreos

from the words-are-like-wind dept

Earlier this month, we noted how Netflix had complained to the FCC about broadband usage caps, quite-correctly noting they're little more than price hikes on uncompetitive markets. Netflix also was quick to highlight how caps can be used anti-competitively against streaming video providers, something the FCC opened the door to when it decided to turn a blind eye to the practice of zero rating (or exempting your own or a paid partners' content from counting against the cap). As such, Netflix urged the FCC to finally crack down on usage caps using its authority under Section 706 of the Telecom Act.

Apparently worried the FCC might take Netflix advice seriously (there's zero indication of such), a cable broadband ISP named Mediacom filed its own complaint with the FCC trying to defend the practice. Mediacom, which imposes usage caps as low as 200 GB on its users, tries to complain that criticizing ISPs for imposing caps is hypocritical...because Netflix charges different tiers of service for higher quality content and more streams:

"Ironically, those who think ISPs are greedy pigs or evil villains because they charge based on consumption through caps or usage-based pricing do not direct the same moral outrage toward edge providers who price their services in basically the same way. Netflix, for example, charges $7.99 a month for its “basic” subscription. A basic subscriber does not get unlimited usage of Netflix’s library for that price but, instead, is limited to videos in standard definition format and on only one screen at a time."

Of course, Mediacom knows it's comparing rotten apples to oranges. In broadband, users have no competitive options, so if an ISP (or both of the duopoly ISPs in a market) imposes usage caps, a consumer can't vote with their wallet. In contrast, users frustrated by Netflix's practice of charging more money for HD (or 4K) streams can just go get content from another streaming or traditional cable TV provider.

But this type of ill-suited comparison is trotted out again and again in the FCC filing, with the ISP going so far as to compare broadband service to game consoles, video games, socks, and cloud storage. Ultimately the core of the ISP's astonishingly flimsy argument leans heavily on Starbucks coffee and...Oreos:

"Imagine you are out for a walk and experience a sudden, irresistible craving for Oreo® cookies. You only want to spend two dollars, which means that you will be able to buy a two-pack or maybe even a four-pack but for sure you cannot get the family size of over 40 cookies. For that many, you have to spend more. Of course, it would be nice if your two dollars bought you the right to eat an unlimited number of cookies, but you know that is not the way our economy works. It is the same for the Starbucks latte you might want to drink with your cookies and for socks, gasoline and just about every single one of the thousands of other products and services that are for sale in the United States, including essentials like water and electricity."

Again that's so misleading as to be insulting. Consumers have a myriad of competitive options for both coffee and cookies, whereas Mediacom is very often the only ISP available to its customers. It's that lack of competition that encourages ISPs to begin charging more money for the same money via caps and overage schemes where -- unlike utility markets -- nobody confirms usage meters are accurate. As for how the economy actually works in broadband: incumbent ISPs buy state legislatures and federal regulators to ensure nobody lifts a finger as they price gouge the living hell out of a captive subscriber base.

You know, just like the damn lederhosen industry.

Filed Under: business models, choice, data caps, fcc, oreos, usage caps
Companies: mediacom, netflix

Law Professor Mark Lemley: Hollywood Is Simply Wrong About FCC's Set Top Box Plan

from the not-a-copyright-issue dept

We've been discussing for a while now about how the MPAA, with the help of the Copyright Office, has been propping up the complete myth that the FCC's plan to create more competition in the cable set top box space involves violating the copyrights of studios. It's a complete myth. The cable industry has been leading the charge here, mainly because it makes billions of dollars by charging people to "rent" its crappy boxes. But it found a strong ally in copyright maximalists who have repeatedly misrepresented the proposal. As we noted, the Copyright Office put out a report that flat out lied about what the FCC's proposal entailed and about how copyright itself works (arguing that contracts between two third parties could somehow eliminate the fair use rights of private citizens). And, incredibly, the basic argument being put forth by copyright maximalists, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that VCRs and DVRs are illegal too.

That's not how copyright law actually works -- but the message has caught on, and the FCC has already been forced to weaken its proposal -- and the industry is still bitching about it.

Thankfully, we're finally starting to see some copyright experts speak up about just how wrong Hollywood and the Copyright Office are on this. Mark Lemley, by far the most cited intellectual property professor (who is also a practicing lawyer), has written up a piece for the Hill that rips to shreds the idea that the FCC's plan somehow would implicate Hollywood's copyrights. As he notes, they're totally overstating what copyright allows:

The MPAA’s argument that studios have the right to control the device on which you view your content reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. Copyright gives its owner the right to control the making of copies and public performances of a work. But it does not give them control over any use of a work. That’s no accident. Once the copyright owner has been paid once for a particular copy, its control over that copy ends. That’s why I can lend a book to friends, or sell my used record collection outright.

True, there are some things I can ‘t do even with a copy of a movie or song I own. I can’t upload it on a file-sharing site, for instance, and I can’t play it on the radio. But that’s because doing those things either makes a new copy or makes a new, public performance of the work.

The studios have already been paid for the movies shown on a cable or satellite service. Indeed, they’ve been paid specifically for the right to publicly perform the work by transmitting it to my (and everyone else’s) home.

And here, copyright law says something very important to copyright owners: that’s all you get. Once the cable companies have paid the MPAA for the right to deliver their movie into my home, the MPAA loses control over how I choose to watch their movie in the privacy of my own home. I can record it on a DVR and watch it whenever I want. I can watch it on a big-screen TV or a small one, with the sound on or off, in one sitting or many, while fast-forwarding through parts I don’t like or rewinding to rewatch parts I do. I can watch it again and again. Most important, I can watch it on any device I want, including my computer, my iPad, or my phone.

And, while the MPAA and its supporters keep calling the FCC proposal a "compulsory license," Lemley points out that it's not a compulsory license that lets you record a TV program to your VCR or DVR, and neither is this:

That isn’t a “compulsory license” of copyrights; it’s a limit on the scope of those rights. That limit exists even if copyright owners try to declare that it doesn’t. This is the law. It has always been the law. Every effort by copyright owners to control how I watch a show in my own home has ended in failure.

Unfortunately, this blatantly false attack by Hollywood and the Copyright Office on the FCC's plan has been effective. It seems unlikely that the plan will go through, and what's troubling about it is that it's all based on flat-out falsehoods by Hollywood, the Copyright Office and its supporters.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, copyright office, fcc, mark lemley, set top box, set top boxes
Companies: mpaa

Town Loses Gigabit Connections After FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss

from the don't-build-it-and-they-won't-come dept

Back in February the FCC voted to use its Congressional mandate to ensure speedy broadband deployment to dismantle protectionist state laws intentionally designed to hinder broadband competition. But the FCC recently found itself swatted down by the courts, which argued the agency lacks the authority to pre-empt even the worst portions of these laws. As a result municipal broadband providers continue to run face first into protectionist provisions written by incumbent ISP lawyers and lobbyists solely concerned about protecting the current broken broadband market.

The impact of the FCC's loss is very real. Ars Technica notes that one of the broadband ISPs that originally asked for help from the FCC, Wilson North Carolina's Greenlight, has had to disconnect one neighboring town or face violating state law. With state leaders tone deaf to the problem of letting incumbent ISPs write such laws, and the FCC flummoxed in its attempt to help, about 200 home Internet customers in Pinetops will thus lose access to gigabit broadband service as of October 28:

"We must comply with our state law," Agner said. But city council members were very vocal in their opposition to the law and regret having to disconnect the service, she said. "We have not identified a solution where Greenlight can serve customers outside of our county," Wilson City Manager Grant Goings told The Wilson Times earlier this week before the city council vote. "While we are very passionate about reaching underserved areas and we think the laws are atrocious to prevent people from having service, we’re not going to jeopardize our ability to serve Wilson residents."

Greenlight's fiber network provides speeds of 40Mbps to 1Gbps at prices ranging from $40 to $100 a month, service that's unheard of from any of the regional incumbent providers (AT&T, CenturyLink, Time Warner Cable) that lobbied for the protectionist law. Previously, the community of Pinetops only had access to sluggish DSL Service from CenturyLink:

Wilson already had fiber in Pinetops, which has been an electric customer of Wilson's for more than 40 years. Before deploying Internet access to Pinetops, Wilson was laying fiber in the town to support smart grid initiatives. After the FCC voted to let city Internet services expand outside their boundaries, Wilson extended the fiber network to pass the roughly 700 homes in Pinetops, Agner said. Prior to this, Pinetops residents' only option was CenturyLink DSL, she said.

That's the same CenturyLink that's currently using the lack of competition in its markets to begin saddling already slow and expensive DSL service with usage caps and overage fees. ISPs have been very successful in sowing partisan discord by framing municipal broadband as a partisan issue (pesky government interfering in private enterprise!). In reality, most municipal broadband networks have been built in Conservative areas and see broad, bi-partisan support. Disliking the local phone and cable company (and the market failure that built them) is actually something that tends to bring bickering partisans together.

Still, with the FCC's loss there's nothing really stopping ISPs from continuing to use state legislatures as their personal playthings. Currently there's twenty such laws protecting broadband duopolies in place, and despite growing attention to the practice, new protectionist laws are being passed each year.

Filed Under: competition, dsl, fcc, fiber, municipal broadband, north carolina, pinetops, wilson
Companies: centurylink, greenlight

This Bill Could Stop Protectionist State Broadband Laws, But ISP Control Over Congress Means It Won't Pass

from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept

We've noted for years that one way incumbent broadband providers protect their duopoly kingdoms is by quite literally buying state laws that protect the status quo. These laws, passed in roughly twenty different states, prevent towns and cities from building their own broadband networks or in some instances from partnering with a private company like Google Fiber. Usually misleadingly presented by incumbent lobbyists and lawmakers as grounded in altruistic concern for taxpayer welfare, the laws are little more than pure protectionism designed to maintain the current level of broadband dysfunction -- for financial gain.

Earlier this year, the FCC tried to use its Congressional mandate under the Communications Act to eliminate the restrictive portions of these laws in two states. But the FCC's effort was shot down as an overreach by the courts earlier this month, and the FCC has stated it has no intention of continuing the fight. That leaves the hope of ending these protectionist laws either in the hands of voters (most of whom don't have the slightest idea what's happening) or Congress (most of whom don't want the telecom campaign contributions to stop flowing).

Undaunted, Representative Anna Eshoo this week introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2016 in the House, which is intended to be a companion bill to the existing bill of the same name already introduced in the Senate by Senators Cory Booker and Ron Wyden. Both bills would ban states from passing any law that prohibits a city, municipality or public utility from providing "advanced telecommunications capabilities" to state communities. In a statement, Eshoo expressed her displeasure at the ongoing efforts to thwart alternative broadband options:

"I’m disappointed that a recent court ruling blocked the FCC’s efforts to allow local communities to decide for themselves how best to ensure that their residents have broadband access,” Eshoo said. “This legislation clears the way for local communities to make their own decisions instead of powerful special interests in state capitals."

"Rather than restricting local communities in need of broadband, we should be empowering them to make the decisions they determine are in the best interests of their constituents. Too many Americans still lack access to quality, affordable broadband and community broadband projects are an important way to bring this critical service to more citizens."

Which is all true, though both bills have virtually no chance at passing. Incumbent ISPs have been very successful in paying lawmakers to argue that any attempt to eliminate these protectionist laws is an "assault on states' rights," as argued by the likes of Marsha Blackburn. Of absolutely no concern to these critics is the fact that large companies are writing and buying the passage of state laws that ensure many states remain broadband backwaters solely to protect incumbent ISP revenues.

On the bright side, the rise of alternative (though limited) options like Google Fiber -- and the FCC's fight -- have shined a very bright spotlight on a practice that has been ongoing for fifteen years with little to no public and press attention. As such, ISPs (and the politicians that love them) are having a much harder time than ever convincing locals that laws keeping them on expensive, sluggish broadband are in their collective best self-interest.

Filed Under: competition, congress, fcc, municipal broadband

Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps

from the pay-more,-get-less dept

We've long pointed how how broadband usage caps (especially on fixed-line networks) are arbitrary, punitive and confusing. In addition to being totally unnecessary, broadband caps open the door to anti-competitive behavior (like zero rating a company's own content but not a competitor's). The idea that caps are necessary to manage the network has long been debunked, and even the ISPs themselves have admitted that caps have nothing to do with congestion. Broadband caps are little more than glorified price hikes on captive markets, useful to protect legacy TV revenues from streaming video.

Despite the profoundly negative impact of usage caps, most Silicon Valley companies remain mute on the subject. One of the few exceptions is Netflix, which not only has been a vocal opponent of caps, but has often taken steps to try and help consumers navigate them. Now the company is once again pushing the FCC to take action in a new filing (pdf), urging the agency to use its authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act to crack down on caps and overage fees:

Data caps (especially low data caps) and usage based pricing ("UBP") discourage a consumer's consumption of broadband, and may impede the ability of some households to watch Internet television in a manner and amount that they would like. For this reason, the Commission should hold that data caps on fixed line networks and low data caps on mobile networks may unreasonably limit television viewing and are inconsistent with Section 706.

From there, Netflix is quick to reiterate that even ISPs have admitted that caps have no actual technical purpose when it comes to managing the network:

"Data caps on fixed line networks do not appear to serve a legitimate purpose: they are an ineffective network management tool. Fixed line BIAS providers have stated that data caps on fixed line networks to not serve a traffic management function. They have been described alternatively as a way to align customers' use of the network with what they pay. As a method of price discrimination however, data caps and UBP are redundant to the speed tiers that consumers are used to. Data caps and UBP raise the cost of using the connections that consumers have paid for, making it more expensive to watch Internet television. The Commission should recognize that data caps and UBP on fixed line networks are an unnecessary constraint on advanced telecommunications capability.

Netflix (now technically the world's biggest pay TV company) notes that in addition to being unnecessary, punitive, and potentially anti-competitive, usage caps are simply confusing. The majority of consumers don't know what a gigabyte even is, and by nature will tend to pay for higher tiers of service they don't need just to avoid being penalized (something that's quite easy by ISP design). Netflix is also quick to note that even higher caps may not be sufficient as consumers slowly shift to 4K streaming (not to mention other bandwidth-intensive applications we haven't even invented yet).

The problem for Netflix (and any consumer who cares about usage caps) is that the FCC's enforcement or interest in this subject has historically been inconsistent at best. While the agency did manage to prevent Charter from imposing caps for seven years as a recent merger condition, the agency has consistently turned a blind eye while companies like AT&T and Comcast expand their own usage restrictions and overage fees. And while Comcast and AT&T may have recently raised their own caps to 1 terabyte to fend off possible regulatory action, there's no real indication that any broader FCC action is forthcoming.

While the FCC has hinted that it may include usage caps as part of a voluntary push for broadband "nutrition labels", it's not likely the commission will do much more than that (even though nobody is confirming meter accuracy). Whether it's the FCC's $300 million broadband availability map that intentionally omits price data, or the agency's failure to even mention the ISP practice of using bogus fees to covertly jack up advertised broadband rates, punishing or even highlighting the price gouging that goes on in the broadband industry on a daily basis has never been the FCC's strong suit.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, net neutrality, usage caps
Companies: netflix

MPAA Freaks Out In Response To FCC's Revised Set Top Box Plan

from the because-of-course-they-would dept

So Karl has already pointed out the ridiculousness of Comcast complaining about the new FCC set top box proposal -- a proposal that is basically identical to the one that Comcast itself had proposed in response to the FCC's original, more comprehensive set top box proposal. And a bunch of other organizations have rushed out statements slamming the FCC proposal as well, despite their previous support for an "app-based" solution.

And now the MPAA has stepped into this mess with a hilariously misleading, to downright false, claim that this revised proposal still violates copyright law:

If Chairman Wheeler's revised proposal is as it has been described to MPAA members and others in meetings, it still amounts to a compulsory copyright license that the FCC does not have authority to grant. The MPAA does not support compulsory licenses, has never supported compulsory licenses, and we cannot do so here. Whether through a licensing body subject to FCC review or otherwise, the FCC must not encroach upon copyright holders' discretion in how they exercise or license the exclusive rights Congress granted them in section 106 of the Copyright Act, or jeopardize the security of their content, as the Copyright Office explained in its expert analysis."

Except, of course, there's nothing in there that's a copyright issue at all (just as there was nothing in the original proposal). The new proposal doesn't impact copyright licensing at all. Just read it. It only requires that TV providers offer apps that are fully controlled by the provider, enabling subscribers to then access licensed content. There is no infringement here. There is no compulsory license. The TV providers still have the same license they've always had with the content providers. The end users still have the same contract they've always had with the TV providers. The only difference is that end users might not have to rent expensive boxes any more, and now the TV providers will make apps available to those subscribers, which can work on various boxes to access the same licensed content.

The complaint here is really about the loss of control for the cable providers and the ability to shake down the public in renting boxes. The MPAA's ridiculous complaint seems to be that it doesn't like the content being made available on new devices without some sort of additional payment. But that's not the law, and it's certainly not copyright law. For years, we've known that it's legal to use other devices to access content -- the VCR and DVRs have both been declared legal. The MPAA's complaint here is basically that it doesn't like the fact that those court cases have gone against it, and it's trying to pretend they did not.

There is no additional licensing that needs to be done to record TV or movies via a VCR or DVR, just as there is no additional licensing necessary here to make apps available on other devices. The licensed providers aren't doing anything different -- and the content is not going to any unauthorized party. This is just the MPAA (and others) flipping out because they hate the idea that they're losing any amount of control.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, fcc, set top box
Companies: mpaa

Comcast Already Whining About New FCC Cable Box Plan, Despite It Being The Cable Industry's Idea

from the ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept

We've noted how the FCC's plan to bring competition to the cable box fell apart over the last few months, thanks to a massive disinformation effort by the cable industry involving a flood of hugely misleading editorials and some help from the US Copyright Office. In short the cable industry used a sound wall of hired voices to claim that cable box competition would hurt consumer privacy, violate copyright, result in a huge spike in piracy, and was even racist. Despite these claims being nonsense, the unprecedented PR campaign managed to sway several FCC Commissioners that had originally voted yes on the proposal.

With his ally commissioners waffling on the original plan, FCC boss Tom Wheeler was forced to offer up a new watered down proposal (pdf). Under the new plan, cable operators would have two years to develop apps that let all cable customers access content (small cable ops are exempt) on the streaming hardware of their choice. In an editorial defending the plan being circulated to numerous websites, Wheeler makes it abundantly clear that cable providers can use any standard of their choice to develop the app, and have control of their content from end to end:

"While our primary focus during this proceeding was to promote consumer choice and fulfill our congressional mandate, we recognize that protecting the legitimate copyright interests of content creators is also key to serving the public interest. To ensure that all copyright and licensing agreements will remain intact, the delivery of pay-TV programming will continue to be overseen by pay-TV providers from end-to-end. The proposed rules also maintain important protections regarding emergency alerting, accessibility and privacy."

Except the copyright concerns weren't legitimate, because cable box competition has nothing to do with copyright. The cable industry's opposition to real cable box competition is driven by two simple things: a desire to retain control as users flee legacy TV (or more accurately the illusion of control), and a desire to protect $20 billion in annual revenue from cable box rental fees. But the sector obviously can't just come out and say this, so instead they've hidden their motivation behind a litany of hyperbole and bloviation.

Amusingly, it was the cable industry that originally approached an "app based" alternative to Wheeler's initial plan (the flaws in which we've previously dissected here). Yet it didn't take Comcast long to circulate a statement to various press outlets stating that it didn't like this new proposal, either:

"While we appreciate that Chairman Wheeler has abandoned his discredited proposal to break apart cable and satellite services, his latest tortured approach is equally flawed. He claims that his new proposal builds on the marketplace success of apps, but in reality, it would stop the apps revolution dead in its tracks by imposing an overly complicated government licensing regime and heavy-handed regulation in a fast-moving technological space.

By "discredited" proposal, Comcast means that it paid an ocean of think tankers, academics, lobbyists, consultants and others to lambaste the plan at every conceivable opportunity (with news outlets rarely disclosing the financial ties). And by "fast moving technological space" Comcast means a sector historically known for doing everything in its power to not only cripple consumer choice, but punish consumers for seeking out better alternatives to legacy TV. And again, the FCC effectively gave the cable sector the app-based approach its own lobbyists pushed for, and Comcast's still not happy:

"It perpetuates many of the concerns that led hundreds of Members of Congress, content creators, diversity and civil rights organizations, labor unions, and over 300,000 individuals to object to his original flawed approach, including problems with privacy, copyright protection, content security, and innovation. Heavy-handed government technology mandates have a long history of failure. The Chairman’s approach would likely meet the same fate, while causing real damage to the thriving apps marketplace and real harm to consumers."

Again, it's wise of Comcast to avoid mentioning that Comcast paid for, either overtly or covertly, the lion's share of opposition to the FCC's plan. It's also probably smart of Comcast to avoid mentioning that the FCC's counter proposal is almost exactly what cable industry lobbyists asked for. The FCC says it will vote (again) on its cable box proposal at its meeting on September 29, meaning the next few weeks you'll see a barrage of new editorials trying to claim that cable box competition will hurt the children, frighten puppies, and almost certainly rip a giant hole in the time-space continuum.

Filed Under: apps, competition, copyright, fcc, set top boxes
Companies: comcast