FCC to subsidize the internet

The FCC is about to do something that could signal the end of broadcast radio and TV as we've known it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/business/media/13fcc.html?hp

This is very similar to when the government funded the interstate highway and airport system, which in effect killed passenger rail service in this country.

This will be a boom to telecom companies like Comcast and AT&T, and will put the internet into the hands of more people. It's also likely to increase development of more consumer internet receivers, and basically make traditional broadcasting obsolete. Or at least hasten its demise. I'm sure from the FCC's point of view, it's inevitable. This basically takes the internet, which has been largely unregulated, and places it under the supervision of the government. That could mean more regulations for the ISPs and others that have built the superhighway. At the same time, it's likely that traditional broadcasting is not going to get much attention in terms of things it needs to survive.

Sadly, this is nothing new; the plan to advance the Internet and undermine broadcasting has been at place at the FCC since the Reed Hundt era in the 90s. Hundt even called broadcasting 'a threat to democracy.' Positively chilling...
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/03/12/daily.4/

TheBigA said:

This is very similar to when the government funded the interstate highway and airport system, which in effect killed passenger rail service in this country.

Click to expand...

What an interesting perspective you have pictured here! It's hard to imagine what life would be like today IF the Interstate had not come! Most of us will at first say: "Ah, progress is good! Bless the Interstate!" And then I look at the communities.... large and small.... that look like an ugly, deformed human being because the Interstate became a foreign "body" disrupting the natural, normal flow of life.

Would we have magnificent rail travel today had the Interstate not been built? But before nostalgia steals the show we have to remember that thoroughfares and turnpikes were being built before the Interstate. What we would have today without the Interstate is thriving civilization in the corridors of Boston to Washington, maybe on to Chicago. And much of the Midwest and much of the South would be like some third world nation.

So thinking in that kind of mystic view.... apparently there is thought based somewhere in Washington (and funded by who knows whom!) that without a government push to bring the Internet in blazing speed to every nook-and-cranny of the nation we may avoid seeing the "fly-over" portion of our nation as part of "the third world" 30 or 50 years from now.

There is precedent... and it has raised it's head in recent days. When our nation was but a young pup, the Post Office was considered an essential service and the mandate was to bring postal service to every hollow in West Virginia and every mountain canyon in Idaho and every cactus littered crossroad in the Southwest. Today the Post Office is on life support and we are debating pulling the plug.

So Federal "mothering" of high-speed digital service to every part of the nation is not some far-fetched evil new sinister conspiracy. It is just us being the U.S. as always... but in a new way.

But the devil is in the details. That does not mean we will do it exactly right. Humans will once again generate great amounts of saliva as they scheme to get more than their share of this new meal.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

But the devil is in the details. That does not mean we will do it exactly right. Humans will once again generate great amounts of saliva as they scheme to get more than their share of this new meal.

Click to expand...

In other words, the various special interests will try to influence the system in ways that will benefit them the most.

newsbot said:

Positively chilling...

Click to expand...

It shows how fragile business is in a regulated economy. As big and impersonal as corporate radio is...it pales in the size and ruthlessness of a powerful and agenda driven government. The government can simply shift in its seat, and the tidal wave it sets off can flatten everything around it. It's game-set-match from where I sit. The TV networks will survive because they invested big in cable, and because their real strength is content, not platform. Radio on the other hand invested in platform and got caught. Unless radio realizes the gig is up and reinvents itself quickly, it's toast.

These days, there are some local government-owned AM stations that provide either traffic information or airport information. I expect that to be the only growth area for AM. Plus perhaps some ethnic and religious operations. Otherwise, nothing.

This is NOT in the interests of the public, but the data carriers, and signals a major switch to "pay-for" service only.
It is a natural evolution of governments interests to digitize all communications, and if it's a proprietary system like IBOC, so much the better. They'd prefer all digital, now matter how poorly it works, because it makes it much harder for pirates, or anyone whose
opinion wouldn't already be "correct", approved, moderated or otherwise circumspect according to licensee's tastes and viewpoint.
Good for the status quo, and growth as we know it. Unfortunately, as GRC points out, this growth is sometime ugly and dehumanizing.
We'll be dragged into nothing but listening to something like radio on an i-phone, with another 40 dollars a month for the service.
I find this about as exciting as listening to a radio station over a phone wire, and if that's all that's left, then I just don't care much anymore.
Nothing beats the magic of a beautiful but strong, slightly phase mutilated AM signal from 700 miles away at night, playing music you like.
Especially if the music represents something of or imparts a flavor of where it from regionally.

Tom Wells said:

This is NOT in the interests of the public, but the data carriers, and signals a major switch to "pay-for" service only.

Click to expand...

That's where the subsidy comes in. They will subsidize the users, and then regulate the companies so they don't become too powerful. Using the railroad analogy, they made highways free and quicker than trains, so people were encouraged to drive rather than take the train. Highways were also more convenient and more independent. The internet is actually LESS proprietary than broadcasting. You don't need lots of money for towers and transmitters or a license to access the highway. They'd argue this system is MORE in the interests of the public, because it takes the power out of the hands of a few large media companies and puts it in the hands of the public. What they don't say is it replaces a few media companies with a few telecom companies.

This is an assault on the broadcast television industry but radio shouldn't be affected. The only fly in the ointment for radio is that it will probably mean that the TV industry through the NAB will lobby even harder to retain ch. 5 & 6 should the BMC proposal ever come up for consideration.

As an added incentive to clear off some of the spectrum, the FCC will propose levying spectrum fees on broadcasters. But this entire wireless broadband proposal just doesn't pass the smell test particularly when someone like cell phone inventor Martin Cooper has said that moving users off the band is not the solution to getting more spectrum for wireless broadband but finding more efficient methods for using existing spectrum is.

As Tom Wells indicated, losing free TV in exchange for a subscription service is not in the public interest but only benefits a few powerful companies (not to mention the government).

Nothing will be done until after the spectrum inventory is completed which is expected to take about a year.

c5

Carmine5 said:

This is an assault on the broadcast television industry but radio shouldn't be affected.

Click to expand...

Subsidizing the internet makes internet alternatives to broadcast radio easier to receive, and also incentivizes consumer electronics companies to come up with more devices that include internet radio alternatives like Pandora and last.fm. The last five years has been about increased competition. That will continue at a higher pace if this plan is approved.

TheBigA said:

Carmine5 said:

This is an assault on the broadcast television industry but radio shouldn't be affected.

Click to expand...

Subsidizing the internet makes internet alternatives to broadcast radio easier to receive, and also incentivizes consumer electronics companies to come up with more devices that include internet radio alternatives like Pandora and last.fm. The last five years has been about increased competition. That will continue at a higher pace if this plan is approved.

Click to expand...

I was referring strictly to the FCC's plan to reclaim spectrum. They aren't interested in reclaiming the FM or AM bands. Of course, as the Commission's grand, taxpayer-supported wireless broadband scheme advances it will have some impact on radio.

c5

The Washington Post published a link to the Executive Summary of the FCC's plan:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/?hpid=news-col-blog

HD Radio is a failure. Sure, there are no pirate stations broadcasting in HD at the moment. But if HD does get popular, someone will crack the codec and pirate stations will broadcast in HD.

Spooky stuff...the kind of stuff that make conspiracy therorists, Dr King bashers and holocaust denialists want.....remember they are the ones that claim that "this is a republic,not a democracy....let's keep it that way!" They are waiting for the next opporituinity to come out of the cracks and instill their hate gospel to another generation....This is why we have history classes in school. Hitler would have loved it that way...so would the binLaden criminal!