FCC to Permit Complete Media/Telecom Consolidation 304
rhwalker22 writes "Today's Washington Post has a piece reviewing some of the major decisions the Federal Communications Commission will be making in the next few months, moves that could fundamentally rewrite the rules for the broadcast media and Internet service providers. Excerpt: 'Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.'"
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
And how this is different from today?
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention the TV stations all being administered by a sinister few....
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)
For more info see the Prometheus Radio Project [prometheusradio.org], they're former radio pirates that do grassroots organizing around this issue. They helped community groups apply for licenses and travel around helping to setup stations, are connected w/ lawyers and engineers that can help, really a great resource.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess us libertarian geeks will just have to set up our own channels of communications.
Does anyone know if it's feasible to build local wans around the country and then start linking them together to create a "public" internet? I'm thinking about routing in particular. Is there anyone already working on something like this?Re:huh? (Score:2)
One promising GPL one is Locust World [locustworld.com], which combines a bootable Linux distro with the AODV routing software, 802.11 drivers, NAT functionality, and more. The AODV libraries are open source, and you could apply this to just about any wireless medium. More info about AODV in general
And of course, the company [meshnetworks.com] I work for has a proprietary solution, but it is dependent on using our 802.11b card for the time being. That, and we aren't mass producing hardware at the moment. The tech is certainly there though! Mesh networking with 802.11 is just extending the topology of the wired internet to the wireless world.
As far as routing goes, ad hoc on-demand routing (implemented by the AODV libraries I mentioned above) is probably the best solution for building a scalable network. Wireless links are inherently unreliable, so a pure distance vector algorithm like RIP isn't the best solution, and routing updates on a large network would have a lot of overhead with many nodes.
Forgive me if I glossed over the subject, hopefully other can fill in the blanks =).
Re:huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course!
One promising GPL one is Locust World [locustworld.com], which combines a bootable Linux distro with the AODV routing software, 802.11 drivers, NAT functionality, and more. The AODV libraries are open source, and you could apply this to just about any wireless medium. More info about AODV in general here [ucsb.edu].
And of course, the company [meshnetworks.com] I work for has a proprietary solution, but it is dependent on using our 802.11b card for the time being. That, and we aren't mass producing hardware at the moment. The tech is certainly there though! Mesh networking with 802.11 is just extending the topology of the wired internet to the wireless world.
As far as routing goes, ad hoc on-demand routing (implemented by the AODV libraries I mentioned above) is probably the best solution for building a scalable network. Wireless links are inherently unreliable, so a pure distance vector algorithm like RIP isn't the best solution, and routing updates on a large network would have a lot of overhead with many nodes.
Forgive me if I glossed over the subject, hopefully other can fill in the blanks =).
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like the way the market punished Enron?
Oh, okay, Enron is out of business. But none of the execs are in jail. Looks like the free market only punished the worker bees at Enron, and all it cost was doubling the electicity rates of everyone on the west coast. Enron screwed the West Coast, and their punishment is that the poor slobs who were "only following orders" at Enron are out of a job, while the "evildoers" walk.
The incredible amounts of money that our regulated and semi-regulated industries deal in are far too tempting for private companies to not exploit, cook the books, what have you. Airlines, utilities, and rail travel all need to be run by the government (at least in large part.)
Look at RailTrack in the U.K. That worked well. Not.
While there is much less motivation to spend wealth wisely among politicians than among CEOs there is also much less incentive (or even possibility) to grant yourself huge stock options, bonuses, and multiple golden parachutes and escape clauses at the expense of your customers.
How can the "market" know who to punish when the CFOs at Enron and WorldCom are lying in their SEC filings? The market only finds out well after the crime has been committed, and hence it will always be reactive. What we need is a more proactive approach so we're not always cleaning up the next big corporate mess.
And how do you deal with the fact that private corporations will deliberately break the law, knowing that the fine is less than the cost of, say, disposing of hazardous waste properly? A public enterprise does not have the luxury of performing a cost-benefit analysis of doing something illegal. By contrast, a corporation is practically COMPELLED to consider illegal behavior if it represents an attractive value proposition to its shareholders.
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine if Sony, your ISP/cable company, decides that you, as a consumer, really only need port 80. Their TOS allows them to monitor your computer for p2p apps, and while you're free to 'license' (listen to once, without recording) sony music and video for a small fee, any non-sony media will be subject to a bandwidth cap...so if you listen to non-sony internet radio, you hit your cap 4 days into the month.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Another good resource is at the Center for Digital Democracy [democraticmedia.org].
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Any time a friend turns on the radio is sends me into a rant. There really isn't anything worth listening to any more, with the exception of NPR.
Thanks Michael Powell (though I'm not sure if he was chairman at the time). And thanks Clear Channel.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't need no stinkin competition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
SBC won't want to share with the 3 CLECs we deal with. They won't play nice, they'll simply up the rental fees until the CLECs are gone.
I don't want to hear any whining from SBC about how it costs too much to share either. We (at our little telco) know that's a lie... Everyone at the small ILEC/CLECs know -- and so do the people at SBC. But people with money always win... *shrug*
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
With this change, you will have your Microsoft TV Channel, Microsoft radio station, Microsoft Newspaper, Microsoft Internet access, Microsoft Movies. (Or insert your other favorite Conglomerate. ATT or Disney perhaps?)
Then again, we've got MSN and MSNBC already, so we're pretty close already.
Re:huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironic... (Score:2, Interesting)
He used to spout crazy shit about the CIA running drugs too.
It's a sad commentary on the world when current events seem like a cheap rehash of "Illuminatus!"
Crap, he's probably right about the aliens, too.
Unification (Score:5, Funny)
You'll have to start making out your cheques to "AOL-TimeWarner-Disney-MGM-Universal, an Exxon Company"
Re:Unification (Score:2)
Actually, no. Who do you think will own the bank your account's at ?
Re:Unification (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unification (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you noticed that most of the truely evil companies have large shareholders, but not a true majority owners? Yep, we're ripping ourselves off so we can fund our own retirement in our 401k.
Re:Unification (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, waht about the other conglomerate, "SBC-20th Century Fox-Viacom-ABC-Amazon-Microsoft Corp (MSNBC)-DirectTV, an Enron Company"
(They have more experience with lawyers and court rooms
Re:Unification (Score:2)
SBC-20th Century Fox-Viacom-NBC-Amazon-Microsoft Corp(MSNBC)-DirectTV, an Enron Company.
Re:Unification (Score:2)
I'll help you.
It starts with an "E" and ends with a "G"... and that which is between is VERYTHIN.
That should clear things up.
We've nearly achieved the socialist paradise! (Score:2)
and to head off any smart alecs at the pass:
Fear??? (Score:3, Funny)
Yoda almost had it right
Fear leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
Hate
Last Chance to Diss Your ISP (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Last Chance to Diss Your ISP (Score:2)
If your ISP is one of the many now owned by msn.com (i.e., Microsoft), your EULA probably already forbids this, except perhaps in jurisdictions where there are local laws against such restrictions. And in the US as a whole, such restrictive terms are legal. Under the DMCA, publicly describing bugs or flaws in any product you buy or rent is illegal..
--
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
this is a good thing (Score:4, Funny)
DON'T PANIC.
trust me on this one. yes, we do have plans to merge with at least three other companies, mostly medium-sized regional providers. what we haven't told you, however, is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo.
we will be able to do this due to the fact that there will be no middle-man provider. there are also some amazing projects in the works regarding satellite and wireless data transmission. think: global wireless network, anywhere in the world, anyone in the world, no charge. the bandwidth will be limited to 19.2 bps initially, but the coverage will be absolutely ground-breaking.
what's in it for us?
Re:this is a good thing (Score:2)
Cool. Now get them to do away with the contracts and I'll DEFINITELY switch to DSL and tell TimeWarner to "GFY".
That is, as long as the service isn't over-sold to the point that I'd get better service slapping in a 19.2 baud modem and going back to dial-up..
Re:this is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is a good thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, with 1GB download cap, no uploading and service contract which forbids using P2P software?
I don't see how unrestricted high-end DSL can cost $10/mo.
Rule Number 1: (Score:5, Funny)
DON'T PANIC
the one thing you can be sure you need to do forthwith is PANIC!!!!
No delays now. Start running down the streets screaming at the top of your lungs, rending your clothes and flinging yourself into plate glass windows. It's for your own good.
Re:this is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe that $10/month will only last until a majority of people have signed up, then the price will go way up.
Re:this is a good thing (Score:2)
What costs $10/month these days? I'm sure we will get what we deserve in service. Does anyone trust ATT, AOL or Disney to give it to us?
too vague, no guarantee (Score:2)
The default "consumer" mindset now (just accept it, it's more or less a general truism) is "we" just plain don't trust any large corporations to ever tell the truth on anything. We DO trust them to cook the books, pay high level executives obscene amounts of money for basically not a lot of "work",to do whatever it takes to avoid paying pensions or shareholders once the stock money is spent, to just constantly run businesses into the hole and declare bankruptcy and skip with the loot then start over again, lie in front of congressional committees, pay bribes to the same guys, establish and endless stream of daisy chained convulted sham/scam off shore "corporations" so they can buy,sell and lease their own stuff back and forth to each other to avoid any taxes and any personal named human responsibility, and to use lawyerese foreign language fine print on any "contracts" with end users that is so small that you need two magnifying glasses to read it.
Besides that sure, if this is true and reasonable, bring me dsl (19.2 dsl? huh?) (sdsl preferrably so I can host) out in this rural area I live in that has some sort of reasonable up stream and downstream, I'll pay double that 10$, even triple, as long as my bandwith is my bandwith,you don't block my ports, and I don't have to pay for "content" that I don't want, that is, don't force me into a "bundling" arrangement for pay per view nonsense. Don't make me pay for a phoneline I never use. Don't tell me that you only "support" one OS when I call to get a connection. Something like that, more power to ya,hope to see it. If there's a lot of "gotchas" in the fine print, ain't interested, will hold out for guerrilla/independent/home made wireless access somehow. If you have a cool breakthrough-great! Even if it starts at 19.2 but can advance within a year, swell, I'll buy it. Not that much slower than I get now on staticy rural phone lines (phone line+inet connect running over 50 clams a month now), and I'd much rather have wireless, that means my projected move to even a "more" rural area won't necessarily jeopardise my inet connection..
Or as Bill Gates once said.... (Score:2)
Oh, and Bill didn't say this. He didn't say "640k should be enough for anybody" either, but the 'net is a funny thing.
Humpty Dumpty (Score:3, Interesting)
Define Irony (Score:5, Funny)
So, if I got read this correctly, Fritz (Disney) Hollings is calling Powell a corporate whore?
Re:Define Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
--trb
Re:Define Irony (Score:2)
Irony also applies (Score:2)
Hypocrisy is usually ironic.
Re:Irony also applies (Score:2)
Don't know about you, but I usually expect hypocritical behaviour from people with power, thus it is certainly not ironic when it occurs.
Re:Define Irony (Score:2)
If the phone and cable companies get more powerful, that's bad for Disney, therefore Fritz is against it.
Re:Define Irony (Score:2)
Re:Define Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Therfore, they are depending on companies such as Hearst-Argile to make the last-mile link between the network programming and the viewers. If Hearst-Argile were ever to decide to create its own network using its stations to start it, ABC would suddenly be off the air in several major cities, and in the crouded TV field would have a hard time finding replacement affiliates without taking a major downgrade.
Likewise, The Disney Channel, ESPN, and ABC Family are cable networks... but Disney doesn't have a cable system with which to make the last-mile link. If cable companies decided to walk away from Disney, those cable networks would suddenly be devalued with no way to reach end viewers.
Owning content is worthless if you have no way to sell it to somebody.
This is already happening... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is already happening with Radio. Proof? Two words: Clear Channel.
Do you have a KISS-FM in your town? That's Clear Channel. They're putting cookie-cutter pop radio stations (all called KISS-FM) in major markets. In addition to owning KISS-FM in nearly every market, they own TV stations, billboards, concert venues, etc.
Check out this [clearchannel.com] link.
Click here [clearchannel.com] and search for 'kiss' -- you'll find 51 stations, all the same format, all the same manufactured pop stars, all the same type of dopey deejays.
Its radio like this that keeps me listening to CDs.
Re:This is already happening... (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC thinks all this has been good and wants to extend this model to all other media that it regulates!
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
The one exception I will give is in DC...DC101 (101.1) is awesome. The morning DJ, Elliot, bashes Clear Channel whenever he gets the chance. Anyone from the DC/MD/NoVa region can back me up on this.
--trb
Sorry, can't back you up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Admittedly, not as bas as WHFS, which used to be an alternative station, but only barely not as bad.
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
when the internet first arrived I went with MCI for my ISP. Local ISP were able to provide better service and cost.
Big companies CAN NOT provide customer service. They eternally suck at it. The Middle man in the ISP arena has been a source of reduced cost for us internet users, not added costs.
This is the idea the Auto Industry has been focusing on for years. They are always divesting themselves of departments in hopes of creating bigger middle-men to take some of the load off them.
See, their are certian things that ALL the Big3 require, why not let a supplier do that for them all since its the same job. This REDUCES, not increases, redundancy. Consolidation will destroy internet quality, but to me thats ok. This will cause more people to roll their own internet. The only bad part is when this big corps go bankrupt the idiots in the government will give them billions of my dollars to stay afloat...
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Taken directly from http://www.clearchannel.com/ci.php [clearchannel.com]:
"Clear Channel Worldwide (Clear Channel Communications, Inc., NYSE: CCU), headquartered in San Antonio, TX, is a global leader in the out-of-home advertising industry with radio and television stations, outdoor displays, and entertainment venues in 66 countries around the world. Including announced transactions, Clear Channel operates approximately 1,225 radio and 37 television stations in the United States and has equity interests in over 240 radio stations internationally. Clear Channel also operates approximately 776,000 outdoor advertising displays, including billboards, street furniture and transit panels around the world. Clear Channel Entertainment is a leading promoter, producer and marketer of live entertainment events and also owns leading athlete management and marketing companies." (emphasis mine).
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
Not to mention that here in the SF Bay Area (and most everywhere it seems) Clear Channel owns ~80% of the music radio stations, and ~100% of the large concert venues. Making the radio universally similar.
One Station to Rule them all (Score:2)
Making sure radio sounds exactly the same, all across America.
Listen to Clear Channel. The RIAA knows what the best music is.
You don't really need this blues, bluegrass, or other small market music.
All you need it pop, "alternative" and Soft Rock.
Clear Channel, the only way your brain will receive entertainment form here on out.
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a major independent national news voice in TV or radio anymore. They're all owned by Viacom, Disney, General Electric, News Corp., and AOL/Time Warner, or they take funding from the U.S. Government.
The only places you find small news outlets still alive is local TV (because the big companies are restricted from buying stations that reach all of the population) and print newspapers (because the big companies are restricted from buying newspapers where they own local stations).
If those barriers are lifted, what do you think is gonna happen?
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
Re:This is already happening... (Score:2)
I imagine that this is already happening subtly. They could easily not play an artist whose image or music they find offensive or not conforming to their perception of 'family values'. Take a look at the "new" Christina Aguleria. Notice how she looks like a $2 whore now? ClearChannel could decide that, based on her current image they'd rather not play her music or allowed to perform in their venues. Since they own a boatload of channels and venues across the country she could potentially get less air time, sell less records, earn less at concerts and generally be put out of business.
Normally, this would be a good thing. However, no corporation should have that kind of power.
The rumor about Britney (Score:2)
Considering the lack of discernable quality difference in her albums (take that as you will), this seems a plausible explanation.
We'll all work for... (Score:3, Insightful)
What was a sci-fi fantasy/warning is quickly becoming a reality. In the future there will be one corporate entity indistinguishible from and intertwined with the government.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
-S
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I heard this on the news (Score:5, Funny)
Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't that be fewer powerful conglomerates?
Deregulation of the telecom industry has brought us the lowest rates ever! Of course, we're paying fees, taxes, tariffs, surcharges, adjustments, and recoupments that didn't even exist before, but look -- deregulation must work because rates are lower.
The situation with deregulation in this country has put the foxes in charge of hen house.
For my opinion of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, read my other post [slashdot.org].
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
Deregulation led to lower rates in telecomm because there was competition. Deregulation has also seen cable rates skyrocket and the radio dial go to crap as competition is hobbled in those areas.
TV companies to go the M$ way? (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess if they let any TV network own as many channels as they want, then they too can use M$s "embrace and destroy" method of market domination by just buying all the small competition.
Not convinced about the idea that this won't stop new entrants into the market place and any that do appear will get rapidly snapped up by one of the big 3 to be.
That prospect has Amazon, Microsoft Corp. and a coalition of other technology companies worried that those gatekeepers could prevent users from looking at certain content
How many consumers would seriously put up with internet content being blocked if it's not the suppliers companies content?
Maybe certain ISPs would be born that are basically a new version of TV channels - only their content but provided for a lower price...
in the IT world (Score:3, Insightful)
From a socio-political position, however, it further blurs the distinction between medium and message. Damn that McLuhan - he was smart!
Re:in the IT world (Score:2)
If the market is permitted to behave naturally, we will be down to a small handful of players who own the entire process including the studio to make the content, the cable channels that package the content, and then the communication networks with which to sell the cable channels. This seems okay on the surface, but there's a huge problem.
It's hard to start a movie studio, it's hard to start a cable network, and it's hard to start a cable system / satellite company. However, it's much more than three times as hard to have to start all three at the same time. (If any one component of the three is a failure, the whole project gets knocked off course even if the other two components are perfect.) By redefining what used to be three games into one, they have made it much harder for new enterants to get in their way.
BTW... why hasn't Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings done an in-depth report on the effects of communications industry consoldiation?
This is going to get worst (Score:3, Funny)
Well... (Score:3, Funny)
I for one welcome our new insect - er, media - overlords.
Why limit ourselves to only a few variants of democracy? There are plenty of other options [50megs.com]. It's time to give honest plutocracy, argentocracy, timocracy, or even quangocracy a chance.
Show me the money (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Show me the money (Score:2)
Michael Powell runs the FCC (+1 Truth) (Score:2, Insightful)
Example of a media company controlling a country (Score:5, Informative)
Brazil's biggest media company is called "Rede Globo" (Globo Network). They own radios (both AM and FM), TV stations across the country and newspapers.
It's hard to describe the power of such corporations although the US is beginning to have a glimpse of what happens when media becomes a tycoon controlled business.
Rede Globo's ascent to power began in the mid 60's when they sided unilateraly with the military (Brazil was forcefully ruled by the military for 20 years starting in 1964, with lots of torture and deaths -- all with the consent of the US governement, but then it's a different story). Newscasts at that time use to portray any opposer as "subversive". The whole thing grew to be what it is today: A big conglomerate with tentacles in all sections of the society.
One interesting example is what happened to "Fernando Collor", a whacko that eventually got elected as the Brazilian President some years ago. Globo supported Collor fiercely, as the other candidate was Lula (the current Brazilian president). Corporations were very afraid that a left wing candidate would win and Globo used all their power in favor of Collor. Later, winds changed and Collor started to go really nuts. Result: Globo gave all attention (nationwide!) to anti-Collor movements across the country. Lots of dust under the rug came to light and he was eventually impeached.
And if this was not enough, consider this: In the US, when Britney Spears starts singing on the radio you just say a few bad words and change the station (OK, OK, it's going to be hard to find a good one). In Brazil, when Globo wants to impose a new fad, you'll see that on TV most of the time, you'll listen on a few radio stations and on the highest circulation newspapers. You cannot escape the annoyance. You just cannot.
Re:Example of a media company controlling a countr (Score:2)
This is a pretty rare tactic because it's both expensive and hard to do. (You have to buy time from several different companies, and some stations might not have an ad slot available where you want it.) However, if the same media company controls all of the signals that you listen to, it's very easy for a sponsor to deal with one company to push whatever message it wants out to you.
here comes the dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is of course what you would want if you were trying to subvert democracy and freedom...a task some members of the current administration have already made great inroads on.
Re:here comes the dictatorship (Score:5, Interesting)
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- Mussolini
Needless to say, I saved it!
Re:here comes the dictatorship (Score:2, Insightful)
It's beautiful. The privatization of suppression.
1930's, part deux (Score:3, Insightful)
HELOOOOO! it is asleep already! two letters M$
in the 30's the fcc shifted from a public interest view of it's job to a pro-business view. as a result, enourmous barriers to entry were constructed in TV and Radio.
fact is, the system in place favors the regional phone companies too much already. its nearly impossible to switch DSL providers without a massive downtime and loss of productivity. cable is only as good as the local monopoly that provides it (if its like here with AT&T, not even worth the hassle of dealing with those incompetents), and many cable co.s are providing downstream only links to prevent sharing, with a dial in modem for up, awful. i thought broadband's big advantage was that you don't need a second telephone line.
fact is, the only way to break the hegemony of the regionals is for someone to step in and require that the infrastructure is separated entirely from the sales and marketing, and make baby bells that once again become public utilities instead of sanctioned monopolies.
Chomsky's Media Control (Score:5, Informative)
If you're interested in the effects of media consolidation and government propaganda, check out this short summary [thirdway.org] of a pamphlet Chomsky put out during the Gulf War.
I disagree with huge chunks of what he says in this pamphlet and subsequent pronouncements. But he has been writing about the consolidation and manipulation of the American media for many years, and if current trends continue, his annoying rants [zmag.org] may mirror the truth more closely than any of us would like.
Wipe my greymatter off the moniter (Score:2, Flamebait)
And, when a legislator sells out, we need to join together in working toward their ouster, like... Fritz
Damn, my head exploded again.
Anyway, my point is this - Disney is not the worst corporation out there. Fritz' may be 0wn3d by Disney, but at least he doesn't belong to AT&T. I may not like Disney's plans for DRM, but they've never sponsored the overthrow of a national government (ITT, the predecessor of AT&T, aided Pinochet in establishing a military dictatorship in Chile. [labournet.org.uk] Search the page for ITT.)
So, would AT&T abuse their power to suborn Democracy? They already have. I sure don't trust them.
Bah, none of this really matters... (Score:2)
Oops (Score:2)
I can see it now.... (Score:5, Funny)
me: dial
phone: Welcome to North East America Inc... your call is important to us... etc.. press 01 for support with your phone; 02 for support with cable; 03 for support with your internet; 04 for support with your climate control;
me: 99... wait...
phone: sir, your buildings central waste monitoring facility has detected trace amounts of marijuana. as you know drugs fund terrorism and terrorism is un-American. as a precaution we have temporarily detained all occupants pending an investigation
me: what!
phone: sir, the central e-mail monitoring facility has detected that your e-mails contain words like "high", "da bomb", and "explosive" and may refer to un-American activities and therefore your e-mail has been suspended...
me: nuts!, I am moving out west!
phone: sir, we have logged your request and are sending you a Western America Inc transfer form. There is a $20,000 transfer fee.
me: thats it I am moving to Canada!
phone: sir, only terrorists live in Canada... please stand by security services are on the way...we have restricted your TV to receive Lawyer commercials you may wish to watch while you wait... have a nice day.
Competition is dying already :( (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, I would love the FCC to get rid of one regulation: the idiotic regulation that requires me to cancel DSL service before I can get another provider to even take an order. The same group comes out to disconnect me as will connect me five days later. I want to see down-times of hours not days nor weeks (if unlucky). How can people try out different competitors easily if they will have to wait so long?
canada shows US the way (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:canada shows US the way (Score:3, Insightful)
Unregulated Capitalism is the EVIL of the world.
but yet.... (Score:2)
I don't want cable, I want DISH.
Bad for Democracy (Score:2)
Can you imagine a society where if you spend enough money anybody can get elected?
Oh.
note: satellite/cable and the Internet are moderating forces, but they are not free (federally subsidized), which is why this is a problem.
The usual response from the masses (Score:2)
Of course, this all could just be an evil plot.
$G
This is really bad news (Score:3, Interesting)
With the DMCA, safe harbour provisions were created that transfered the right of distribution away from the creator into the hands of the distributor the moment the creator posted his/her material on the net. In effect the creator of a work lost the right to distribute and duplicate their work - without any negotiation or need for the creator to be compensated.
Thus, a company that owns content (which is presently not made available on the net) would be at a disadvantage because the moment they post it - they would effectivly lose control over distrribution. This ruling by the FCC will fix that. By merging media interests with distribution interests the combined mega corporation controls both the distribution as well as retaining control of their copyrighted materials - IE the problem is fixed.
Collateral damage includes anyone who is not powerful enuf to be a major carrier and/or who does not have a significant amount of internet content - enough to make them attractive enough for a large telecomunications interest to want to climb into bed with them.
Slashdot falls into this category. With no means of negotiating a sweetheart "convergance" contract with a telecommunications carrier, slashdot will get hosed on bandwidth charges. Meanwhile, having lost the "right to copy" their presumably copyrighted materials (DMCA transfers these rights to the carriers) Slashdot is unable to participate in the HUGE revenues that stem from the delivery of same to the consumming public.
What a sad commentary on manipulation of the unfolding cyber world.
This development is NOT in our interest! It certainly should be considered rather draconian by anyone aspiring to make a living utilizing the technologys presently being developed for cyberspace.
This group will include most webmasters, many systems admins, most HTML and CGI programmers and probably most of the flash programmers. The group includes a lot of wanna-be-professional web developers and artists - many of whom are doing brilliant work and may never know why the job offers they were hoping for didn't develop.
If anyone things this is an overestimate of the damages - then consider the number of layoffs in the dot.bomb sector. A good place to read on this is at fucked company [fuckedcompany.com]
Over at FC, Pud declares that these were just shitty business plans and that any company that does not make a profit will simply go out of business. Ya, Pud is pretty ruthless - might not have a heart.
The point IMHO that Pud is overlooking is that some outfits like Slashdot.org do a RATHER GOOD JOB and they also are feeling a cash squeeze. Perhaps its a bad business plan... but I rather think the issue is having your work taken without compensation and being given no access to a rather HUGE revenue stream that this work helps to create.
Let me ask - if it were not for great websites like Slashdot, why would people like us bother to subscribe to an ISP? We pay our ISP's for access to this material and our ISP's pay their upstreams. Somewhere along the way over to the slashdot servers the money flow stops.
Slashdot is a very popular website - even so they have little market clout in the eyes of upsteams. So little slashdot with little bargaining power is placed in the situtation that they can either pack up their bags and go home - or try to find some way to fund the operation.
Meanwhile, if there are say 100,000 slashdot readers then "we" pay at least $25x100,000 = $2,500,000 per month for our interent access. In my case with the dropping content, I find that the docs over at gnu and a few other open source projects makes it worthwhile for me to have a dedicated connection. In total - slashdot probably represents over 10% of the total internet content I look at. I would be very happy if a percentage of the money I pay each month found itself flowing into the pockets of SlashDot.
But without any distribution clout - that isn't likely to happen.
Meanwhile we should expect that organizations like CNN, TSN, and so forth will find they can make good money distrubuting THEIR content - because THEY will have enough clout to bargan for an inside seat in the distribtution game.
In effect, the rest of us subsidize them because the content they have could NEVER create the net.
Big media - the big tobacco of tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)
The interesting thing about those who read and write to slashdot regarding this story is their tension between media-craving and media-disgust. The majority of respondents, by virtue of reading the site itself, are in some way addicted to news and information. Notably they are loathe to hear of corporate conglomerates taking control, despite the fact that they likely pay $50+ monthly cable bills to these very corporations.
Media companies have exclusively the interest of their consumers in mind whenever they do anything. This is economic law. They give the masses - and we're all part of the masses despite whatever intellectual tricks we use to convince ourselves otherwise - what the masses demand. Substitution of one sub-media for another ("underground" music instead of "popular" music) does not free yourself, ultimately the happy-go-lucky Media Inc. will figure out your shifting preferences and deliver it to you in any form you're willing to pay for. And you WILL be willing to pay for it.
In case you want to keep up with the mergers (Score:3, Informative)
The Columbia Journalism Review keeps good tabs on such things.
Re:reg. required??? (Score:5, Informative)
No, we prefer not linking to them, but given that most sites are switching to that, I don't really see a choice in the matter.
Re:reg. required??? (Score:2)
Re:Media (Score:2)
HUH!!???
This isn't progress
Do you REALLY want Keanu Reeves and Tori Spelling giving you the news??? They might look good after many takes, but I don't think too many actors are going to hold their own on any good debate shows or if they have to improv. when the teleprompter goes down
First, shouldn't that be in the form of a question?
Secondly, the answer is: NO WHERE!!!
This is a terrible idea! Imagine every web page with Mickey Mouse's face on it!! Porn wouldn't look so good at that point
Or even worse
Re:In Some Regulatory environments (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_bio
("Mr. Powell, a Republican"). He's SofS Colin Powell's son, by the way. He's probably what passes for a "moderate" these days, which is to say, a hard right-winger.
I take it you're one of those libertarian-minded folks who's under the delusion that the Republican party is libertarian.