VIDEO CHOICE ACT: OBAMACARE FOR THE TELEVISION CONSUMER
Preserve American Freedoms …
With the staggering amount of corruption in the Congress, why would anyone believe that Congress is acting on behalf of the consumer …
Starting with deceptively named legislation put forth by special industry lobbyists who want to extend their control over content delivery platforms and pricing, why should anyone believe that the United States Congress is acting on behalf of consumers, especially in election cycles that demand tons of special interest funding? Especially legislation offered by a progressive socialist democrat affiliated with a party that is attempting to stifle political free speech in America using government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (the people who want to put government monitors in newsrooms), the IRS (the people who deny there is a scandal when they targeted conservative free speech), and manipulate the free and open flow of information coming out of the least transparent government in modern history. An Orwellian government where up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right, and above all, nothing is as it seems.
H. R. 3719 -- Video CHOICE Act of 2013
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to facilitate retransmission consent negotiations between television broadcast stations and multichannel video programming distributors, to provide greater subscriber choice in cable service tiers, and for other purposes. Read the full bill in context at: H.R. 3719
Consider the language …
- “To facilitate retransmission consent negotiations between television broadcast stations and multichannel video programming distributors.” Why would anyone believe that further government intervention in a free and open marketplace operation would be good for anyone; the economy, the participants, and the consumer?
- “To provide greater subscriber choice in cable service tiers” One need only look at the complex and confusing pricing of telephone services to know that public agencies only foster price deception and increasing prices. True consumer service would see an à la carte scenario where consumers could pick and choose the content they want and pay accordingly. No more offers of 500 content channels containing 450 consumer-subsidized channels of no interest or having foreign language content that is incomprehensible for the mass of English-speaking consumers.
- “And for other purposes.” – The key words that let ostensibly single-purpose bills be larded with pork-barrel amendments or amendments that fundamentally change the nature of the original legislation.
What the content providers fear most …
There is little or no doubt in my mind that the greatest fear of the content providers is the consumer’s ability to view television transmissions on an internet-enabled device of their choosing (conventional television, tablet, phone, etc.) without paying for separate subscriptions and content delivery. Subscribing to a cable system, but transmitting that signal to your another device in your home be it a desktop, laptop, tablet, and smartphone without paying extra for additional device reception points.
Even worse, losing their sole delivery point monopoly as cord cutters look to independent content creators such as Netflix for original content that may never be shown on a broadcast stations.
From the non-partisan Congressional Research Service …
CRS Summary Video Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment Act of 2013 or the Video CHOICE Act of 2013 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), if a negotiation for a replacement or extended retransmission consent agreement between a television broadcast station and a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) reaches an impasse resulting in the expiration of the carriage rights of the MVPD, to authorize interim carriage of such station by the MVPD pending the conclusion of a new agreement. Prohibits a station that elects to grant retransmission consent from entering into an agreement with an MVPD that is conditioned on carriage of any other programming affiliated with such station (or with a person who owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with such station). Directs the FCC to complete a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether, during retransmission consent negotiations or after the parties to such negotiations reach an impasse resulting in the expiration of an existing agreement, the blocking of online content owned by or affiliated with a television broadcast station constitutes a failure to negotiate in good faith under communications laws addressing false, fraudulent, or unauthorized transmissions. Removes from the minimum contents of a basic service tier a requirement for cable system operators to provide to subscribers any signal of any television broadcast station that is provided by the cable operator to any subscriber, thereby enabling subscribers to obtain basic cable television service without receiving broadcast stations that elect to collect fees through retransmission consent agreements. Requires each cable system operator to offer its subscribers a separately available retransmission consent service tier that consists only of the signal of each television broadcast station electing retransmission consent that is carried on the cable system. Makes such retransmission consent service tier subject to the same rate regulation as the basic service tier. Prohibits cable operators from requiring a subscription to any tier of service other than the required basic service tier as a condition of access to, or from discriminating between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for: (1) video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis, or (2) the retransmission consent service established under this Act. (Thus, prohibits services or programming from being limited to certain "bundling" arrangements.) Directs the FCC to submit to Congress an annual report regarding the costs paid by MVPDs for carriage of regional and national television sports networks in the top 20 regional sports markets. |
Try to understand what they are really saying …
Does it appear to you that this crooked legislation that only affects broadcasters and would allow the government to regulate rates and force broadcasters to offer their programming to cable operators on an à la carte basis that would not require them to accept lesser programs as part of a bundle?
Does it appear to you that this is an anti-competitive measure that is designed to benefit the cable and satellite television industry at the expense of the over-the-air television broadcasters? Primarily to counter the increasing competition in the cable-television market
Why pay-TV providers afraid?
- ISPs (Internet Service Providers) such as Verizon, AT&T, and Google are competing with cable and satellite providers.
- Netflix has demonstrated that they can create original and compelling content with hits such as House of Cards.
- According to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon is considering offering live pay television and control a large platform through their Kindle-branded devices.
The simple answer is competition. They want the government to guarantee their operating margins.
Bottom line …
It is time that we understand that all regulatory costs are always passed on to the consumer, with few exceptions.
It is time that the Federal Communications commission be disbanded and its spectrum allocation, station and operator licensing, and equipment certification functions be turned over to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). No more interference with content, pricing, or delivery platforms.
It is time that the government withdraw from interference in the free market for content creation and distribution under the guise of fairness, equality, or serving the underserved. All socialist code words for tighter and more intrusive government interference and manipulation.
It is time that the consumer recognize that this corrupt legislation is little more than demanding that television broadcasters provide content at government-regulated prices while allowing the cable and satellite operators to change whatever the market will bear. Remember the entire cable industry started out as a CATV (Community Antenna Television) operation to bring television signals to areas that were dead zones -- and were used to getting their content free or at a minimum price. Then there is the question of additional commercial injection into broadcast content, depriving television broadcasters of the revenue necessary to put forth quality programming.
No more free ride for special interest lobbyists and their corrupt politicians.
This is clearly a play to bring content distribution under the thumb of the government, where adherence to a corrupt political system can interfere with the message of freedom and liberty. In essence, nationalization of the broadcast industry much as Obamacare nationalized the healthcare industry. And, unfortunately, with the same disastrous effects. No more Pelosi bullshit that you need to pass this bill to see what is in it. We can see what’s in it and do not like it already.
Above all, no government regulation or interference with the Internet – other than to ensure that pipeline pricing is based on the similarity of data-bits and not the content carried.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS