FCC Rejects Calls For Cable-like Fees on Broadband Providers (thedesk.net) 15
The Federal Communications Commission has rejected a call from the National Association of Broadcasters and some industry trade groups that would have imposed cable-style regulatory fees on streaming services, tech companies and pure broadband providers. From a report: In a Report and Order issued on Friday, the FCC reaffirmed that regulatory fees are calculated based on the number of full-time equivalent employees assigned to specific industries under the agency's jurisdiction. Broadcasters, satellite operators and other licensees are already assessed annual payments, which help fund the FCC's operational costs.
The NAB, in concert with other groups like Telesat, Iridium and the State Broadcasters Associations, pressed the FCC to expand the list of fee payers to include broadband providers and large technology firms. They argued that companies operating online platforms and broadband services rely on FCC resources and should contribute to the costs of regulation. "Big Tech should not be permitted to free ride on the FCC's oversight," NAB said in submitted comments earlier this year. The NAB argued that online platforms enjoy regulator benefits without paying into the agency's budget, as broadcasters and satellite operators do.
The NAB, in concert with other groups like Telesat, Iridium and the State Broadcasters Associations, pressed the FCC to expand the list of fee payers to include broadband providers and large technology firms. They argued that companies operating online platforms and broadband services rely on FCC resources and should contribute to the costs of regulation. "Big Tech should not be permitted to free ride on the FCC's oversight," NAB said in submitted comments earlier this year. The NAB argued that online platforms enjoy regulator benefits without paying into the agency's budget, as broadcasters and satellite operators do.
That's... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That's... (Score:3)
Does the FCC even have oversight of them? Last I checked, the FCC can't do anything about boobs on YouTube -- that's entirely managed by Google.
They might have a case if said streamers are using licensed radio spectrum, but they aren't. It's all internet protocol. WISPs maybe, and to a lesser extent, cable, but definitely not fiber. But aren't all of the above already paying their licensing fees? If so, the matter is moot.
It would make more sense for them to argue that the FCC stop policing content on publi
I kinda get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I don’t like paying extra fees, this actually makes sense.
I agree. The internet should be treated like the public air waves with the FCC having regulatory control of anything that uses it to communicate. There should be a licensing scheme to control it and they can use the license fees to help boost their budgets. Big tech gets licenses like broadcast networks, businesses get business class licenses, and then issue amateur style licenses to individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but this FCC under la Presidenta is only interested in regulating the entities they do not like. You cannot trust them to act like a honest broker, in anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC manages radio signals because they are a limited resource. Internet bandwidth is not a finite resource- the companies (many of them the ones pushing this regulation) can just lay more fiber.
That easy to fix with one act of congress (or with an illegal presidential order) giving them regulatory power over the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes zero sense for ISPs to be subject to the FCC, because ISPs are not content creators or moderators. There have been so many lawsuits since the 1990s against ISPs because the MPAA for example would try to force ISPs to act as a content filter, but if a ISP isn't doing moderation, then it couldn't be seen as "allowing" anything. The most is to comply with federal and local laws when it comes to takedown requests for hosted materials.
THE REAL PIRATES (Score:1)
The NAB and CTIA and other associations spending millions of dollars buying congressmen on behalf of "Big" media and "Big cable" and "Big AT&T" are the real pirates. They provide lobbying to ensure more of OUR money goes into THEIR member pockets.
It's not Johnny downloading GoT that's the pirate. It's these fat white republican a-hole lobbyists and their "associations" that rip off the rest of us. Meanwhile they gut programs that help people who have no access to broadband, dumb down what broadband
Not sure if this affects local fees, but maybe (Score:1)
At least around where I live, if a cable provider wants to offer service in a given town, they negotiate a deal with that town where the town gets a little bit of money per cable customer. That money funds things like community-access TV stations, staff and gear, studios at high schools, and so on, so you can watch the local sportsball team, or whatever boring town government meeting, and so on and so forth.
Those community-based things have taken a huge funding hit due to cord-cutting, so they (and towns)
Sour grapes from NAB...losing subscribers ! (Score:2)