DISQUS

No disagreement here. If you've seen my other posts on the issue, you'll see I've been pretty critical of the broadcasters in particular. But, as you say, that doesn't let the FCC off the hook. Policymakers need to stand up to such nonsense, not become enablers of it.

True enough, at least in the short run. If the rule didn't exist, I don't think think your average pajama-clad blogger would be walking away with armloads of Pulitzers. But there are some online outlets that already can stand up to anything on paper. I cited CNET and Salon.com, but there are more. Remember, also, that online writing isn't necessarily by those with no print background -- some of the best are in fact by print refugees like yourself.

Actually, exclusive franchises are already prohibited under the 92 cable act, and the FCC is looking at whether localities have violated that ban by unreasonably denying franchises to competitors. Maybe the question should be whether franchising itself should be done away with.

But, yet, you watched it. Seems to be one more illustration of the hyper-availability of video programming in the home.

Well, now I know how to stir controversy on TLF!

I agree completely with Tim that context matters. There are certainly times when cell phone use is safer and times when its less safe. Driving on an empty highway is certainly safer than driving in rush hour traffic changing lanes. This need not be an all or nothing proposition though -- I hope I didn't imply it was. Law can be written in all sorts of ways. My point is that -- where safety is at issue -- restrictions can make sense.

Does this mean we have to ban all sorts of other activities? Not necessarily. Tim's right -- people do all sorts of distracting things while driving -- some can't be controlled (yelling at kids, perhaps), some are less dangerous, some happen rarely. Again, we don't have to have an all-or-nothing approach here. It's like saying you can't put up a stop sign on a dangerous intersection unless you also put signs up at all dangerous intersections at the same time.

Will bans be enforceable? After seat belt laws (which I strongly opposed) were enacted, usage did go up substantially. I'm frankly not sure though whether the increase was because of the laws or not. But, again, if cell phone use presents a real risk to other drivers, why shouldn't it be restricted, even if you don't catch most violators? There's lots of things you can do that are legitimately banned, which you'll probably get away with.

I want to make clear that I'm not endorsing an open door to indiscriminate regulation here. But if cell phone usage by drivers puts other drivers at substantial risk, I see no free-market principle that says it can't be restricted. In fact, protecting individuals from injury from others is exactly what government is supposed to do. (As opposed the the zillions of things it does, but shouldn't). In that sense, it IS the sort of thing the police should be worried about.

Of course, now I'll be branded forever as the pro-regulation TLFer... :)

Adam -- It doesn't seem Ahronian raises a real "case or controversy" for the courts -- he's just asking for a declarary judgment by the courts without any specific dispute at hand. Whatever the merits, the courts will throw this out until there's an actual disute with an actual patent at hand.

Exactly right. Now we just need three people like you on the FCC...

Viewer don't have an option to turn off football? Having your TV on is not a conscious decision? Come on! You really should get out more -- there's a lot more to do than watch TV, and a lot more on TV than football (especially if you think it might offend you, something that viewers should certainly be on notice of by now.)

The answer to your question is yes, there were and are competitors in the local loop, although fewer than there would be, I'd argue, because UNE access discouraged investment there. These competitors btw needn't be new, struggling startups (though some are). Last I heard cable companies are providing service without no LEC loops involved, thank you very much.

The UK experience is mixed -- Britain is hardly the international leader in broadband. That distinction goes to Korea, which rejected forced access for broadband. (Here's a good piece by Tom Hazlett on that: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-br...).

I'll stick to my guns on this one. First, the plant that built under the days of guaranteed rate of return is largely gone, replaced by new investment. (Here's a paper I did on this recently, discussing some of the numbers on this: see "Are U.S. Telecom Networks Public Property?" http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTec...). The more important point, though, it what is best for consumers going forward. Whatever the history, we need policies now that maintain incentives for incumbent LECs, and potential competitors, to invest and build. UNE rules that require LECs to offer their facilities at below-cost rates reduce these incentives (as would separation of the ownerhip and operation of the facilities.)

Sounds like a great place to start our discussion at next week's conference...

Adam -- I agree. One little point though -- you refer to the contracts with "affiliates." Sinclair is not a network, it is an ownership group. Most Sinclair stations are actually owned by Sinclair, and the rest are under "local marketing agreements." Many of course are affiliates of OTHER networks, such as WB, Fox, ABC, etc. This makes Sinclair's case even stronger, IMHO. When people speak of Sinclair "forces" affilates to do this or that, they are simply directing their own divisions to do something. It's as like saying the New York Times "forces" its printers to print specified articles each day. Just imagine!

Yes. I was testing to see if anyone caught that of course. I did say "let stand" in the body of the item, so I at least hope I get credit for that.

I'm certainly glad that the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over stadium videos then. (Or it that something else in their "ancillary" jurisdiction?

I certainly agree with your anti-censorship sentiments, but I seriously doubt stronger media ownership rules are the solution. Getting the government involved more in media would only, well, get the government involved more. And that would mean more censorship not less.

A random thought -- is there a 5-second delay for the presidential debates? Would the networks ever use it to filter content? Could they be fined were they NOT to filter something out? Probably not a likely scenario, but interesting to ponder.

Adam -- just thought you should know that you are the apparent victim of identity theft. Someone is now using your name to advocate federal subsidies. I hope you find the perpetrator.

More seriously, I agree there is no clean way out of the DTV mess -- the FCC has dug a deep hole that it will be hard to get out of. But why do I think that after we spend $1 billion, the problem won't be solved? The bcasters may still find a reason not to return the spectrum, more money may be requested, lord knows what else. Perhaps I'm just in a defeatist mood. Or maybe I've read one too many papers from that Cato outfit on the problems with government spending. :)

Yes. In fact, perhaps more than a grain of salt is needed -- vast salt mines may be necessary.

We'll have to put you down as "undecided" in that case.

My apologies for the links to CBS News, btw. I'm assured that the Oracle decision is NOT a forgery, but one never knows.

Adam -- no time for reading! Get back to your baby!

Good point. By and large, though, the networks have been supportive of the rule changes, most notably the limits on how many affiliates can be owned (which is the one that became most controversial in Congress). The affiliates opposed that one, but supported other changes. Nevertheless, I'll be the first to agree that the networks haven't always been on the side of free markets. (Can you spell HDTV?).

I meant Tobias. He's only one day old, and already I've misspelled his name.

Congratulations to you and Dani! When I didn't see posts from you here yesterday, I suspected something was up. I'll be looking forward to the first posts from Tobia very soon.

Perhaps some sort of Lifetime Achievement Award would be in order in this case...