Kevin Martin Opposes Regulating Internet Content?

from the say-what dept

A significant part of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's legacy will be the moves he made -- and tried to make -- to crack down on indecency while he was in power. The FCC went after TV broadcasters with much more vigor than under previous leaders, trying to impose big fines for "indecent" content, many of which got smacked down later by courts. Martin himself was a major advocate of a la carte cable plans, in which consumers could simply pay for individual channels, rather than bundles. This represented a significant change of tune for the FCC, which had previously held that a la carte plans would carry too much additional cost to be to consumers' benefit; Martin's interest was, presumably, the decency angle, using the threat of an a la carte mandate to get cable operators to offer so-called family tiers of inoffensive channels. Martin was unapologetic about this in a speech last week at the CES show, when he said he didn't have a problem with his actions to clean up TV, but added that he didn't believe broadband content should be regulated because it's not easily accessible to children, and because its "content you choose to select and pull down" rather than "content you push out".

Huh? This is the same Kevin Martin that wanted Congress to pass a law giving the FCC the ability to regulate decency on basic cable -- TV programming that people pay for and invite into their home. It's also the same guy that backed a quixotic plan to build a free nationwide wireless data network, complete with content filters. This is the sort of doublespeak that we've come to expect from Martin, and won't have us shedding too many tears if he's replaced before his term expires in 2011. Hopefully the next chair will be more interested in issues like competition and technology than in moral issues and buddying up to telcos.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Slams Kevin Martin For Abuse Of Power

from the good-thing-they-waited-until-he-was-done dept

FCC boss Kevin Martin is nearing the end of his tenure at the FCC, looking ready to jump into a lucrative industry job or (some have speculated) explore the possibility of running for elected office. We've been among his many critics over the year -- specifically for his rather blatant efforts to side with the telcos, even when his views are exactly the opposite for telcos when compared to cable companies. The worst, however, may have been his awkward attempt to not just bury an analysis that showed that a la carte cable would be more expensive -- but to come out with a totally different report claiming the opposite.

Congress has now released a report slamming Martin for widespread abuses of power during his chairmanship, noting his efforts to force the FCC to bury the original report and publish the new report. He ordered the group to rewrite the report with the opposite findings and demoted the guy who wrote the original report. The Congressional report also noted that Martin had failed to properly oversee various telco slushfunds. You know all those extra "fees" the telcos charge? Basically it all goes into a big fund controlled by the telcos (not the gov't) with almost no oversight. The Congressional report specifically dings Martin for his oversight (or lack thereof) of the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund. Apparently, Martin ignored plenty of evidence that the telcos were overcharging, and let them just keep collecting. And, on top of that the FCC did little to actually audit the program.

It's also worth noting that Congress decided to release the report without holding hearings, noting: "due to the climate of fear that pervades the FCC...we found that key witnesses were unwilling to testify or even to have their names become known." Good thing they got that figured out just about a month before he's leaving office...

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kevin Martin In Favor Of Freeing Up White Space TV Spectrum

from the good-news dept

While there's been a ton of propaganda from TV broadcasters (and, oddly, wireless microphone vendors) concerning requests from tech companies to make use of the so-called "white space" spectrum that surrounds the spectrum the TV broadcasters use, it appears that FCC boss Kevin Martin is now prepared to support freeing the spectrum for other uses. This isn't all that surprising, given that the FCC has been pushing to free up such spectrum for years, but it is very good news. While there were some early test device failures, the problems were with the devices themselves, not in creating any interference, as the critics claim. This totally unused spectrum could open up all sorts of interesting new wireless technologies that could be tremendously useful in many different ways.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kevin Martin Tries To Thread The Needle In Sanctioning Comcast

from the a-little-of-this-and-a-little-of-that dept

As was widely expected, FCC boss Kevin Martin has come out saying he believes Comcast violated FCC rules in its traffic shaping program, and he's recommending that the FCC sanction, but not fine, Comcast and order it to stop its traffic shaping (something it's already planning to do). Kevin Martin's favoritism towards the telcos is well known -- so it comes as no surprise that he'd come out against Comcast. He's given every indication that such a move was in the cards. However, the lack of a fine -- combined with telling Comcast to do what it was already doing -- is an interesting move. If anything, it may be an attempt by Martin to quietly assert control over cable and hope that the cable industry doesn't fight back.

Whether or not the FCC's mandate really does include cable is an open question -- and the cable companies have at least a decent claim to the fact that their systems are not covered by the FCC. So, here's a situation where the FCC is slapping Comcast's wrist in such a way that Comcast is unlikely to mind -- but if it "agrees" to the response, then it may be effectively admitting that the FCC does have a say in how cable companies operate, which could open quite a Pandora's box in terms of the FCC's overall mandate.

There is, of course, a simpler way out of this that no one appears to be taking. The real problem most people had with Comcast's actions was that it wasn't at all transparent about them -- continually insisting that they weren't doing anything. Effectively, Comcast may have been guilty of false advertising in terms of how its network worked. So why not have the FTC, rather than the FCC, slap them down for their lack of transparency, rather than having the FCC step in where it might not belong?

As for those who are claiming that Martin's statements are somehow a "victory" for network neutrality, you might want to think again. Martin has made it clear in the past that he's not a supporter of network neutrality -- especially when it comes to the telcos, telling AT&T that if it felt it needed to start discriminating traffic for a valid business reason, it should feel free to do so.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Believes In FCC Authority When It Suits Comcast; Otherwise? Not So Much

from the well,-you-see,-it-all-depends-on-who's-asking dept

Does Comcast believe the FCC has authority over its traffic shaping efforts? Well, it may just depend on who's asking. When the FCC asserted that it did have a say in regulating Comcast's traffic shaping efforts, Comcast emphatically stated that the FCC's authority does not extend that far. And, technically, Comcast is probably correct that it would be an overreach of the FCC's mandate -- though the FCC clearly disagrees.

Still, when defending itself against a lawsuit in California over the very same traffic shaping, Comcast has convinced a judge to suspend the lawsuit by noting that the FCC has clear authority over these matters:

This issue "i.e., the reasonableness of a broadband provider's network management practices" has, however, been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), an administrative agency whose authority to regulate internet broadband access companies' services is well-established.

That seems like a quote that could come back to haunt Comcast. Either way, it looks like the FCC is about to show Comcast who's boss. Reports are coming out that Kevin Martin is about to slap down Comcast for its traffic shaping. This should come as little surprise to anyone. If you're playing the home game, recognize that if the question concerns cable companies, Martin will rule against them. If it involves a telco, Martin will rule in favor of them.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is The FCC Subsidizing The Least Efficient Providers Of Rural Telco Services?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a huge boondoggle for telcos, who keep getting more and more money out of it, with almost no oversight into what's done with that money. And, the way it's set up, it actually blocks more innovative (and cheaper!) services from being used to improve connectivity in rural areas. It's good to see others are beginning to notice this. News.com is running an article from Gregory L. Rosston at Stanford who points out that the USF rewards companies for being the least efficient providers. That is, by showing how much more it costs the telcos to provide for rural users, the FCC grants them even more money. In other words, the less efficient they are, the more money they get. Not exactly the type of incentives the FCC should be setting up -- but given FCC chair Kevin Martin's super chummy relationship with the telcos, perhaps it's no surprise.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Sues The FCC Over Telco Favoritism

from the no-surprise-there dept

We've been pointing out that the Kevin Martin and the FCC's opinion on certain subjects seems to change over the same issue depending on whether the issue deals with cable companies or telcos. For Martin, it seems the telcos can do no wrong, and the cable co's can do no right. Comcast has finally had enough and has sued the FCC over the questionable 30% cap that Martin proposed last year soon after granting yet another huge telco merger. Even worse, the 30% cap seems to have been based on questionable data and without any reasonable justification. It seems punitive more than anything else. Comcast is hoping that Martin will now have to explain himself in court.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Investigating Alleged Problems With Martin's Management Of The FCC

from the what's-really-going-on-at-the-FCC dept

It looks like some folks in Congress are beginning to question Kevin Martin's leadership at the FCC. Rep. John Dingell, along with some other Representatives sent a strongly worded letter to Martin demanding he hand over an awful lot of information, including memos, emails, notes and schedules pertaining to a variety of different things. The letter itself (pdf) notes that they're investigating Martin based on "credible" allegations concerning how the FCC has been run under Martin. While the letter details what Dingell is asking for, it doesn't shed too much light on exactly what the allegations are -- so we'll just have to wait and see what comes out down the road.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is Kevin Martin's Opinion On Net Neutrality Different When It's Comcast Than AT&T?

from the just-wondering dept

FCC chair Kevin Martin is well-known as a good friend to telco companies -- but that friendship has never extended to cable companies. That's why it's rather amusing to see him try to act tough against Comcast, suggesting last Friday that the FCC doesn't look kindly on Comcast's traffic shaping practices while just a year ago, he was telling AT&T that the FCC wouldn't stop them from doing the same thing, if AT&T decided it was necessary "for business reasons." Can anyone give a reasonable explanation (other than outright favoritism) for why Martin would hold cable companies to a different standard than telcos?

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Investigating FCC Practices, Questions Of Favoritism

from the whoops dept

There certainly have been a lot of questions concerning favoritism on FCC chair Kevin Martin's part. He has consistently been for regulating cable while deregulating telcos. He clearly has a very close relationship with the telcos, and never seems to question their motives. That came to a head last month when Martin pushed forward plans to cap cable growth despite serious questions about the FCC's authority in the matter (as well as questions about cherry picking statistics to support his case). It seems that all of that has now caught the attention of Congress, who is going to launch an investigation of the FCC's rulemaking process, and examine accusations of favoritism. Seeing as this is a Congressional investigation, it's likely to be a lot more grandstanding than anything substantial. However, at the very least, it looks like Congress is making it clear to Martin that he may have pushed his luck one too many times.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Looks To Close Kevin Martin's Loophole For Regulating Cable

from the not-so-fast,-kiddo dept

Last month we noted how amusing it was that supposedly "anti-regulation" FCC chair Kevin Martin suddenly turned "pro-regulation" when it came to cable companies -- the arch enemies of Martin's buddies in the telcos. For years, Martin has hoped that he could force cable companies to offer a la carte programming, which was really a move to help push "family friendly" programming. Of course, the problem was that the FCC doesn't have regulatory control over cable systems. It was designed to regulate the public airwaves, not the private cable lines. However, there was a loophole found in the 1934 Communications Act, that would give the FCC the right to regulate cable if two conditions were met: it was available to 70% of the population, and 70% of those who had it available subscribed. Martin has used that loophole to push for regulations -- but there's plenty of disagreement as to whether or not the numbers really pass the 70/70 rule. For example, the FCC's own numbers pin the number at only 54%. Martin chose someone else's numbers to get his necessary 70%. Either way, though, he still hasn't given a good reason for why the FCC should regulate cable.

While the debate on this issue continues, some folks in Congress are looking to make the whole thing meaningless anyway, by taking away Martin's loophole. They want to amend the Communications Act to remove the 70/70 provision. This seems reasonable, as it appears that Martin is only looking to regulate for political reasons. What's not clear from the article is whether or not the support is there to pass this change to the Act. Tragically, it may depend on who politicians are more in bed with: the telcos or the cable cos.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

People Still Get Their News From Local Newspapers And TV Stations?

from the massive-overreaction dept

I don't understand why people get so worked up about the FCC's various proposals to tweak the rules regarding how many TV stations and newspapers one company can own. The ownership of local newspapers and TV stations was important in the 20th century, when people only had a handful of choices on where to get their news. Local newspaper and broadcast television stations are becoming one small corner of a vastly larger media universe that includes dozens of cable television stations, thousands of news sites, and millions of blogs and podcasts. Nowadays, the real question isn't whether local newspapers and TV stations have too much influence; the question is whether anyone would notice if they disappeared.

Which brings us to FCC chairman Kevin Martin's New York Times op-ed defending his remarkably timid proposal to allow a newspaper in one of the 20 largest cities to purchase a TV or radio station—but not one of the metro area's four largest TV stations. Under his proposal, none of the FCC's other media ownership rules would be changed. In other words, a newspaper would be allowed to buy an also-ran TV station in a cacophonous media market like New York or LA, but the vast majority of cities would see no changes at all. Yet some members of Congress seem to think that even those miniscule changes are too much and have introduced legislation to require the FCC to spend even more time debating the issue, even though, as James Gattuso points out, that the FCC has been debating the issue for 11 years already. On the other hand, as ridiculous as the situation is, it's hard to have too much sympathy for the broadcasters. After all, they were happy to raise bogus fears of media concentration to stop the XM/Sirius merger this spring. Now the broadcasters are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Funny How Anti-Regulation Telco Buddy Kevin Martin Is Pro-Regulation When It Comes To Cable

from the should-have-sang-happy-birthday-louder dept

December's almost here, and with it, comes FCC chair Kevin Martin's birthday (December 14th, for those who care). This might not seem like a big deal to many, but it was just a couple years ago that a bunch of telco execs got together to sing Martin happy birthday just as he announced a bunch of policy positions that seemed to support the telcos' every wish. What's most amazing is that whenever he's pushed on telco issues, Martin likes to claim that he's against regulations -- but when it comes to companies that the telcos compete with, he's suddenly much more open to regulations. So, it should come as no surprise that the cable companies (who apparently forgot to send Martin a birthday cake) are about to wake up to a different world order, as Martin plans to make use of a loophole in the law to start regulating the cable companies -- including putting serious restrictions on growth. Now, there's no denying that the cableco's have a cushy position, which they all too often abuse. However, especially with the rise of satellite TV and IPTV, more competition is reaching the market. In the end, this move sounds like not just a way for Martin to hurt the cable companies, but also a way for him finally to force them to offer a la carte channel choices, a favorite of Martin's for years, not because of the importance of more choice, but because it could lead to more family friendly programming. It could very well be that regulation makes the most sense for the cable industry -- but it's hard to see how Martin can claim equal treatment of his friends in the telco industry, who he lets merge with abandon, while telling the cable companies they can't do the same.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Says Fairness Doctrine Not Needed

from the indeed dept

We don't always agree with FCC chair Kevin Martin -- and there are plenty of times that we find his positions laughable or disturbing -- but he's certainly correct when he says there's simply no need for the reinstatement of "The Fairness Doctrine," which would require broadcasters to give "equal time" to the opposition on controversial topics. Of course, that makes the incorrect assumption that controversial issues have two (and only two) sides, which is rarely the case. It also ignores the huge increase in outlets for anyone to get their views across. However, some politicians have been pushing hard to reinstate the doctrine, which actually feels a lot more like media restrictions than anything to get a message out. As some have pointed out, those who can't get heard shouldn't rely on some unnecessary fairness doctrine to get their message across. They should learn to formulate a better message.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..