IPTV Providers To Pay Same Regulatory Fees As Cable Companies 97
An anonymous reader writes "The FCC is looking to put regulatory fees on a per-subscriber basis for IPTV providers. 'We will assess regulatory fees on Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) licensees and we will create a new fee category that will include both cable television and IPTV,' says the report. What services they consider IPTV is yet to be seen; they call it simply 'digital television delivered through a high speed Internet connection.' We can only hope it doesn't affect too many internet video sites. "
Re:hmm? (Score:3, Insightful)
But the article clearly states:
The fees are designed to recover the costs that the FCC incurs in administering licenses and the like and are based on the number of full-time employees dedicated to such functions on a bureau-by-bureau basis.
And since the FCC does not regulate HULU or any other site sending video streams, it is NOT merely a money grab, but another way to shut down people streaming video of any kind, by simply declaring they failed to pay the fee. They've essentially brought the entire streaming video industry under their control by fiat!
Why regulate it at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the FCC need to regulate IPTV at all? It's not like traditional TV where viewers are stuck with a few providers that have an FCC granted monopoly through spectrum allocation, or a single cable company granted a monopoly by municipal contracts.
What is there to regulate with IPTV? If you don't like your IPTV provider, you can choose another one instantly.
The FTC can regulate the IPTV providers like any other business to prevent monopoly abuse, unfair business practices, etc. Why does the FCC need to get involved?
Another name for government imposed "regulatory fees" is a "tax".
why licensing? (Score:4, Insightful)
What justification in the world would there be for the FCC to regulate and license video transmissions over the Internet? Their job was to ensure orderly sharing of the public airwaves, nothing else.
Re:What you can be sure it will include (Score:4, Insightful)
What it won't include: Pirate Sites
It will add new ammunition to prosecute them --- suddenly they are guilty of the federal crime of evading the tax man. With the FCC; if you fail to file and pay fees, they can assess massive forfeitures.
For example mom and pop ISPs or VoIP providers that buy PSTN connectivity from a wholesalers that fail to meet the new complicated FCC Reporting [fcc.gov] requirements, about their number of customers down to the level of ZIP code and Census tract, can be assessed fines of millions of dollars a day, and thrown in jail until they pay.
Dear FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet is not only in the USA - it is also in the rest of the world and outside your jurisdiction
Am I the only one that wants this? (Score:2, Insightful)
As an AT&T Uverse subscriber, I definitely want the FCC to start regulating my IPTV. To the end user, the services provided by Uverse are identical to those provided by Comcast except that Comcast is more strongly regulated by the FCC. Perhaps the most immediate concern to me is that Uverse requires all subscribers to indefinitely rent their equipment. There is no rent to own for AT&T, and there are no 3rd party options. You must rent their DVR. You must rent their set-top boxes.
With Comcast the situation is not much better, but it _is_ better. You can purchase a TiVo, or an HD Homerun Prime, or a Ceton InfiniTV and use a CableCard. This was mandated by the FCC because they are allowed to regulate cable TV. I would definitely like the FCC to begin regulating AT&T, and force them to allow 3rd party devices such as PC tuners and TiVo-like DVRs.
Obviously their jurisdiction would have to be properly limited, but I definitely see benefits to allowing the FCC to regulate IPTV offerings.