Blogs > Linked! > Author > James Gattuso
The Federal Communications Commission comes to Los Angeles today to kick off the newest installment of its controversial deliberations into loosening ownership restrictions on the broadcast industry. But, like many sequels, this one may have trouble matching the drama of the 2003 original.
[Link]
On July 31, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Susan Dudley as the next administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House Office of Management and Budget. In this position, Dudley would oversee federal regulatory initiatives to ensure their consistency with administration policy and compliance with federal law. Yet even before the nomination announcement, liberal activist and environmentalist groups began a concerted campaign to scuttle her nomination. Hurling smears and outright falsehoods, Dudley?s critics have sought to tar her as an ideological extremist whose confirmation threatens public health. Some activists have even commented on her personal life, suggesting the Dudley confirmation fight could be the next chapter in the politics of personal destruction.
[Link]
THE INTERNET AND DIGITAL technology have been both a blessing and a curse for the entertainment industry, opening new opportunities for selling music and video but also fueling rampant global piracy. To attack the latter problem, industry lobbyists are pressing Congress to adopt at least five different proposals that would give them more control over their works as they flow through new digital pipelines into living rooms and portable devices. But these measures, like the technologies they would affect, have a hard time distinguishing between illicit actions and legitimate ones.
[Link]
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said that "America is addicted to oil." But it would be more accurate to say that America is addicted to opportunity, and oil and its products help us seize it.
[Link]
Forcing cable companies to carry multiple TV signals from each broadcaster over their systems is a bad idea. First, consumers would be worse off, since these channels would displace other channels consumers presumably prefer. (Note that cable firms actually pay broadcasters for the right to carry channels that are popular. By definition, we are talking about the unpopular ones here). Moreover, the rules would violate the constitution. By actual count, multi-cast must-carry likely violates two amendments ? the fifth amendment (taking of property) and the first (free speech). Do the math. That?s 20 percent of the bill of rights. Pretty good for one regulation. They might as well add in something about quartering troops and go for a trifecta.
[Link]
Net neutrality is the wrong way for Congress to go. Network neutrality sounds wonderful and protective ? making sure that everybody gets the same prices and services. Who could be opposed to something as benign as making sure of neutrality in a network? Unfortunately, real-world networks don?t operate neutrally. Freight transport, personal travel, even poles-and-wires telephony all allow for sophisticated contracts in which one can pay for the right combination of ?content? (speed, comfort, reliability) and speed.
[Link]
Keeping deadly toxins out of American bodies is a priority of the Food and Drug Administration. As it should be. But now the administration is wavering dangerously close to taking militant control of American diets. A recently released report asks restaurants to start reducing portion sizes. It?s not a friendly suggestion, either. The report makes suggestions, true, but the administration is teetering on the edge of making this a demand.
[Link]
This morning, CBS announced it had reached a final agreement with Dan Rather terminating his contract and his 44-year relationship with that network. When reports of the impending break-up came of few days ago, the public reaction was surprise. Not surprise that he was leaving, but surprise that he was still around at all. It seems that since he left the anchor?s chair, Rather fell victim to forgotten-but-not-gone syndrome. Although still part of the 60 Minutes CBS team, his output was slight, with fewer shows airing than any other anchor there.
[Link]
WHEN MONOPOLISTS CALL FOR a "level playing field," beware: Most often, what they really want is to hold back the competition. Such is the case in telephone service, as local phone monopolies are trying to saddle high-tech competitors with fees designed to subsidize the traditional phone network.
[Link]
Cheap Internet phone calls could get more expensive under provisions added to federal legislation that sparked heated congressional debates over pay television competition and equal access to data networks. Internet phone companies such as Vonage Holdings Corp. worry that their new service is being subjected to old rules at a time when the Republican-led Congress and the Bush administration are deregulating the telecommunications industry.
[Link]
CBS/AP) 60 Minutes correspondent and former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather has told several publications that he will leave the network before his contract expires in November. The 74-year-old Rather told the Los Angeles Times he would have liked to stay at CBS but he does not consider his leaving a disappointment. "If it had worked out for me to be an important contributor to CBS, I would have liked that," he said.
[Link]
Proponents of Net neutrality spin it as a way to prevent those big network providers from discriminating against the little guys (who might be competing with them). Not too long ago, I was very much on their side. "Imagine you make a phone call to a friend," I wrote then, "but instead of hearing it ring, you get a recording: We're sorry, but the person you are calling has not paid Verizon to carry his or her conversations. But I was wrong.
[Link]
President Bush signed legislation Thursday that will cost broadcasters dearly when raunchy programming exceeds the bounds of decency.
[Link]
Next week, the FCC may revisit the issue of whether cable providers will be required to carry every channel of programming transmitted by over the air broadcasters. ?Must-carry? itself is not a new idea ? for years cable systems have been forced to carry broadcast signals over their networks. When broadcasters switch to digital transmission, however, each will be able to transmit multiple channels over the same bit of spectrum. So, should cable firms be required to carry each and every one of these channels? The FCC said ?no? to such multicast must-carry rules a few years ago. But that was under Chairman Michael Powell. Current chairman Kevin Martin feels differently about ?multi-cast must-carry,? and may now have the votes to reverse the prior decision. This week, he got support for this expanded regulation from an unlikely source: AT&T.
[Link]
Two weeks ago, the Federal Communications Commission finally secured a Republican majority, something it has not had for almost a year and half. During that time, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has had no choice but to work with the two Democrats on the commission and has generally done quite well minimizing the potential for the usual regulatory, big-government intervention in an incredibly dynamic telecommunications marketplace. Thus, one would think that there is cause for relief now that two new Republican commissioners have joined the FCC and that this agency would not begin regulating for no good reason. But, surprisingly, the first issue teed up for decision is something called "multicast must carry," a big government mandate pressed by broadcasters for years.
[Link]
This page:  All: [?]
This weblog is licensed under a Creative
Commons License.
Disclaimer: A link is a link, not an endorsement.
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting
the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder
the passage of any bill before Congress.
|
