FCC May Move to Cap Cable Company Size

explosivejared writes "The FCC is making plans to bring back the concept of a 'size limit' on cable operators. 'FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has enough support on the five-member commission to pass a measure that would bar cable companies from owning systems that have more than a 30-percent share of U.S. multichannel video subscribers ... the FCC could have a difficult time defending the 30-percent cap in court. The move comes six years after a federal appeals court threw out an identical FCC rule on the grounds that the agency did not have enough evidence to justify it."

Tough to Measure Now.... Almost Impossible Later

[JRGhaddar]

What will happen in the next 5 years when IPTV becomes a reality to the masses?

This is where I believe we are headed:

All HDTV's will begin to have Ethernet Jacks, a NIC Card, and some embeded linux with a VTR and a HD.

You can Access IPTV/Local/Cable Channels from All over the world. VTR them. Watch YouTube and Other Net Video Channels, and be able to buy Movies for Watching like OnDemand. You can set your VTR from your office etc through your IPTV online account.

Net IPTV Companies will partner w/ HDTV manufacturers to make sure there IPTV Portal is what is the default portal on connecting to the net.

So to bring this back to today. Technology is changing the game so fast that monitoring a 30% rule seems mute because it's tough to measure now and once the HDTV gets on the net how the hell are they going to monitor all that without everybody getting upset. Consumers don't want to be watched by the governement and the internet is a global entity; which makes it difficult to get Viewer numbers on a company that may be overseas.

This doesn't really address the problem

[Dachannien]

The real problem is not that an individual cable TV provider has too large a market share. The problem is that there is no competition among providers because of regional, not national, monopoly status.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This doesn't really address the problem

[bhmit1]

Absolutely correct. The current system really discourages competition. I'd much rather see a policy that forbids exclusive local rights for cable companies. Then, instead of the 30% limit, let the companies get as large as they want, but regulate them if they get too large and some portion of their customers only have one choice for either cable, internet, or telephone access. This would encourage unregulated small startups to fill a market need, but if one company destroys all the competition they can't turn around and raise all the rates on their customers.

More regulation = worse service, higher prices

[dada21]

Time and again we have people who moan about monopolistic tendencies of large corporations. They offer negative opinions of the so-called free market. Unfortunately for the consumer, the FCC and local municipalities have assured us of never having a truly free market in cable (and cable-provided services).

We need to stomp on the FCC and allow them to truly deregulate (which they've never really done) at the national level. The FCC should have no mandate over cable, or any non-wireless communications provider. It all boils down to property rights, and the ability for competitive companies to utilize public and private property to run their networks.

I know of so many people who are concerned that deregulation (national and local) of cable and comm providers would end up giving us millions of wires overhead on the telephone poles. This is untrue. It would primarily open up the market of physical cabling middlemen who would run their cables and provide access to others. For years, we had the so-called "dry pair" which the phone companies provided. Then DSL came, and the phone companies lobbied Congress and the State government for control of the network. Instead of opening competition up to more companies to offer dry pairs (or newer technology) leased to others, the various regulating bodies shut down competition more and more.

I'm not afraid of having billions of wires all over the place, since the cost to run the network cabling is prohibitive to many businesses -- but still possible to raise through stock IPOs, bond issues, and other market economy money drives. If one company has the only cables, prices will be high, but so will the opportunity to compete: more companies will consider entering that market if they can see a long term profit.

We also need to allow the market to work for remote installations. I know of a few people who live in the boonies and complain about the lack of communications providers: this is part of the "cost" of living far from an urban area, and a cost that people should live with if they want the privacy, and security, of exurban living. There should be no subsidization of remote towns, or anyone. There are tradeoffs, and profits, for life's decisions, and that cost should be evident and transparent, not hidding and paid for by others who didn't make that decision.

Thankfully, we're seeing more solutions slowly popping up. WiFi networks, maybe WiMax networks, and other competitive products should hopefully push the cabled providers to lowering their prices, which may end up having the effect of creating a deregulated market before government will move to unrestrict that competition.

What about satelite?

[acoustix]

Why are they focusing on cable companies? What about DSS services? Seems to me that this move will hurt cables ability to compete with larger nationwide satelite services like DirectTV and Dish.

Nick

Re:The Magic Of The Free Market

[jc42]

Hmmm ... Only one mod, "Insightful". This is a good example of why we should encourage people to always include a smiley in posts that are written as humor. Especially the one that on their surface can be read as any of the conventional semi-religious economic dogmas. People who believe in those dogmas do get mod points, and they tend not to notice subtle humor.

I agree and disagree

[OrangeTide]

I agree that cable operators should not grow and merge into a powerful monopoly. I think it is unfair to consumers and reduces competition. But I disagree that the FCC has the authority to regulate a business, even if they have done so in the past. If any battles between the FCC and corporations are ruled on by a constructionalist judge, it is unlikely the FCC would succeed. Since the FCC has little constitutional authority and a constructionalist would likely only view the department as a manager of broadcast spectrum and regulation of radio emitting and receiving devices. And such judges take a dim view of government entities overreaching their authority.