Well, Adelstein wussed out on us on the 70/70 vote. And it appears that he will not even go to bat for the the leased access proceeding that he championed. We may get some reporting requirements for cable. The FCC Meeting is on hold pending the new negotiations.
Disappointed doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Stay tuned . . . .
We can see digital platforms have the influence of media gatekeepers of old but not the obligations. @ellgood and me on how to address that in 1stA friendly way https://t.co/ZyGbMFpo6L @DemJournal
The wireless carriers pretend their service is a substitute for fixed home service but the last thing they want is any data allowing people to measure it and hold them accountable. https://t.co/inTN3sqLoL
When he came out it did indeed seem as if A wussed out on 70/70 but why do you think he also gave up the ghost on leased access? And if he did, does that mean it will be a)dropped from agenda or b)killed by being put out for comment?
Martin said at his mini-press conference that leased access is “in doubt.” We await clarification.
Harold,
Check out this Cynthia Brumfield post (link below). She makes a compelling argument. Essentially, she contends that Martin got caught screwing with the data so that he could impose “punitive regulations.” After reading this I read some other reports that basically say the same thing, that the data does not have cable passing the 70/70 threshold and that Martin is unfairly focusing on the industry in order to introduce ‘a la carte’ pricing and other pet policies.
I mean, if members of his own party think he’s wrong, and according to Brumfield, “cold hard facts” also run contrary to his assertions – maybe it’s good that the commissioners got more time to review the data and snuff out any misdeeds. Just a thought.
Here’s the link:
_chairman_stands_alone_on_controversial_item.php#comments” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.ipdemocracy.com/…
Cynthia and I have disagreed before on the solicitous nature she expresses to the cable industry.
This attitude is not surprising, given that she worked ten years as director of research at the National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA) before starting her own research shop.
http://www.researchconnect….
We had a similar discussion over network neutrality in February, when she took issue with my analysis that the current broadband market was not wildly competitive.
_under_fire_again_for_broadband_data.php” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.ipdemocracy.com/…
I have argued and continue to believe that the “cold hard facts” are abundantly clear on this issue. Cable crossed the threshold at least as early as 2005. The cable operators refuae to provide data. The FCC has consistently relied on the Warrens data since the Ninth Annual Report in 2002. It only became “controversial” when it showed 71% rather than 68.9%.
For the supporting documentation of my assertions:
http://www.mediaaccess.org/…
_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519815155″ rel=”nofollow”>http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/pr…
_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519815156″ rel=”nofollow”>http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/pr…
_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519815157″ rel=”nofollow”>http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/pr…
See also my friend Greg Rose’s blog posts at:
http://wetmachine.com/e…
http://wetmachine.com/e…
And last, I must always give a huge chuckle at the notion that Martin is an evil guy for attacking the helpless cable industry. If you think he’s a bastard and distrust his motives, the question is whether you believe the cable industry has market power. I think, for reasons I have stated at length elsewhere, it does. Others obviously disagree. But I certainly am not going to be persuaded by a former NCTA flak who currently makes her living peddling services that depend on an unregulated cable industry.