Technical note: This was written Friday night, but due to technical difficulties at RedState, was only posted Saturday afternoon I know many RedState readers are big fans of Jim DeMint, so in my coverage of the Retransmission Consent debate, I’ve focused on him. However he’s not the whole story. This Congress, due to the TEA party-driven Republican majority, it’s been the House where our major regulatory reform successes have happened. And it’s Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana and Bobby Jindal’s successor in the House, who is the champion of the Next Generation TV Marketplace Act there. However I know that there have been skeptics on this reform, so I was fortunately able to snag some of the Congressman’s time, and ask him a few questions about the proposed reforms. Catch his answers below the fold. Tech at Night: Retransmission Consent is one of those terms of art that few are familiar with. Why should we be concerned about these long-standing rules? How could they possibly be harming us if they’ve been in place for so many years? Congressman Scalise : Retransmission consent rules were enacted in 1992, and you only have to compare a cell phone or computer from that era with today’s smart phones and tablets to realize how far technology has advanced, yet the laws haven’t changed to keep pace with the technology. For years, we’ve been limited by archaic laws that still don’t account for the current scope of the Internet or modern, on-the-go, at-your fingertips devices like the iPhone. Unfortunately, these and other obsolete regulations have held back innovation and growth while forcing pay-TV providers to carry programs and stations irrespective of consumer interest, for example. The ’92 Cable Act and ’76 and ’88 compulsory copyright licenses suppress economic liberty and restrict free market innovation in TV programming, yet they still represent the most current laws governing video. Tech at Night: Weren’t the rules passed to stop free riders? If we change the rules, won’t people just retransmit their streams for free? Congressman Scalise : The Next Generation TV Marketplace Act re-establishes personal property rights and also starts a dialogue to allow the modern telecommunications marketplace to return to true free market principles. By returning to a free market, which we don’t have in today’s video marketplace, the only way someone will be able to exhibit a copyrighted video signal is through a mutual agreement between the party that owns the content and the party wanting to show it. Under my bill I have no doubt that commercial programming, demanded by consumers, will be carried by pay-TV providers at a fair market price. This bill repeals both the compulsory copyright licenses and retransmission consent together, which will encourage free market principles by giving broadcasters a new ability to seek compensation for the carriage of their content under traditional copyright law. Doing so maintains a dual revenue stream that broadcasters currently enjoy, but does so through a free market mechanism, rather than the current set of outdated laws and FCC rules that include rate regulation. Claims that changing the rules will necessarily result in pay-TV providers exhibiting valuable broadcast programming for free are simply false and have been disproven by many respected outside organizations. Tech at Night: Do the proposed changes tilt the playing field toward big companies like Comcast? Would we be better served simply by deregulating and letting the market decide? Congressman Scalise : The government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers within the telecom industry, and my bill presents an opportunity to shift to a free market where consumers’ voices and decisions, not federal bureaucrats, determine success. Letting the market decide is a hands-down better solution for consumers and job creators than deferring to the federal government as under current law. The regulatory environment under current law encourages businesses to turn to unelected federal bureaucrats at the FCC to tip the scales in their favor, and that heavy handed approach needs to end. We need to change this 20 year old way of doing things and free up this overregulated and outdated marketplace. I’m proud to lead the charge to modernize this segment of the telecom industry so we can promote more innovation and competition in a free marketplace. It’s as I’ve said all along. This is about fixing laws that try to pick winners and losers. This is about an old situation where one side of a negotiation was favored. The industry losing its favored status will complain about this, but it’s time for fairness. In other news: Pirate Bay founder was fine with hosting a service to aid the dissemination of other people’s information, but keeps his own health issues secret . Do as I say, not as I do! Funny how it works: Government spending gets a multiplier. Private doesn’t. ISPs aren’t protected by rights against Net Neutrality, but Google is against Search Neutrality. Do as I say, not as I do! Then again the FCC itself is where economic logic does not penetrate . I’m calling it now: Sprint will go from progressive cause to villain next week when the firm’s shareholders vote down the same Net Neutrality Verizon’s and AT&T’s did . What happens when judges make law, on their own, without the foggiest understanding of how tech issues work? Self-contradcitory rulings like this , which simultaneously say that downloading an image to view it is legal and illegal. How do you prove a download was active or passive? You can’t. Data is data. Downloads are downloads. Files on disk are files, whether they’re “saved” or “cached.” Credit where it’s due: After I shamed them enough, some of the anti-CISPA crusaders have awakened to the dangers of Lieberman-Collins . I’m glad. Good on groups like EFF for taking a stand where it’s needed. Should government step in to preserve failing business models? That seems to be the argument broadcasters make against Aereo and something to watch as Wireless revenue streams change thanks to Facebook. More Republican support for the Marketplace Fairness Act interstate compact for the states to cooperate to collect sales taxes across state lines: Rick Snyder of Michigan . Again, all I say is give it some firm precautions against a national sales tax, and we’re good to go.
See original here:
Tech at Night: Q&A with with Steve Scalise on Retransmission Consent; Snyder backs Marketplace Fairness Act; Lieberman-Collins gets opposition
The masks are slipping on Cybersecurity. The CISPA debate has died to a dull roar now that the House is done with it, while the Senate may or may not pass it, and the President has promised a veto. And yet, still not outrage against Lieberman-Collins, despite Jay Rockefeller (who introduced a version of the bill the previous two Congresses) admitting he’s anti-business and anti-profit , while demanding government dictatorial control over the private property online . Seriously, in justifying the bill he says “Corporations are unlikely to regulate themselves out of profits,” so the message is clear that like any socialist, he’s trying to eradicate private profit. Meanwhile we again and again prove information, not regulation, is the key to improving security . Here’s an interesting case: New York City wants to search Twitter records without a warrant , and Twitter is saying no. Witness the government’s priorities: spending money to add the DHS seal to DVDS , and blocking spectrum for vague reasons . As with Net Neutrality , though, “ there’s no escaping basic economics. “
Here’s a story that may help New York Times columnist Gail Collins get over her obsession with the incident of Mitt Romney and the dog on the car. In 1996, two years after Romney had returned to Bain Capital after running unsuccessfully against Ted Kennedy for Senate, Robert Gay, a partner at Bain, came to him and confided that his 14-year-old daughter Melissa was missing. She had sneaked out of their Connecticut home three days before, gone to a rock concert in New York City and hadn’t been heard from since. Gay was embarrassed about confessing his dilemma and didn’t expect anything more than a little commiseration. Instead, he was amazed at Romney’s reaction. The co-founder of Bain immediately informed the other partners of the situation, then closed down the firm and mobilized a temporary move to New York City to search for the girl. As the New York Times reported it at the time:
Well, here we are. The reason CISPA was getting all the attention was allegedly that it was coming to a vote first. Well, now Lieberman-Collins is next to a vote , as Democrats scramble to find a way to make cloture. Where’s the outrage? I’ll tell you where it is: non-existent, because CISPA opposition was solely designed to give cover for Lieberman-Collins. We do need the private sector to have more information, though. Internet attacks aren’t going away . Wireless data and innovation are threats and great drivers of competition . We need less regulation if we want competition. Smaller government. Telecommuncations Act, not Obama FCC. And so naturally we have Al Franken wanting Comcast to be targeted and the Germans wanting Verizon to be targeted . They just don’t get liberty. That’s why the radicals passed Net Neutrality, whose insanity is so well summed up like so: “Meaning the hospital downloading a dying patient’s MRI gets no more broadband speed than the guy next door downloading the panda sneezes video on YouTube.” The EU seems likely to block ACTA , in a victory for copyright infringers abroad. Speaking of infringers, Android was built on copyright infringement in the form of Google stomping all over Oracle’s Java copyrights. Yes, Android’s VM is the issue here. That’s why Oracle wants a billion dollars. This is a big deal.
See the rest here:
Tech at Night: Oracle wins Java infringement suit against Google, ACTA fails in the EU, CISPA opponents silent on Lieberman-Collins UNEXPECTEDLY!
So, LightSquared. It’s a funny turn this whole thing has taken. Way back at the start, when I was excited for LightSquared’s potential as a 4G competitor, I was told that they were the next Solyndra. Then, when the Obama administration and LightSquared both reacted badly to requests for oversight, I was convinced. Now, though, defenders on the right are cropping up again for LightSquared . I’ll say this: transparency in the FCC is worth fighting for, but a solution that leads LightSquared build a terrestrial 4G network is also worth finding. See if you can spot the problem: As AT&T warns that FCC meddling is raising prices , the FCC is off expanding wireless subsidies . Since 1992 when the modern, commercial Internet began , and 1996 when the bipartisan Telecommunications Act effectively deregulated the Internet, much has changed. Some think it’s in spite of that hands off law, apparently, so I’m skeptical of calls to rewrite the law , even if they are competition-minded. This call for a law that recognizes the competitive marketplace is reasonable in itself, but I fear that any re-opening of the Telecommunications act could go wrong where the original idea went so right. Also, new laws won’t matter if the FCC will just ignore them. The FCC’s jerking around Verizon, after all . The firm is having to speak up for itself since they’re changing deadlines, dragging it out, doing the bidding of the George Soros extremists. Note: all this regulatory nonsense has a cost: It’s harming our way forward in modern, innovative, high-speed communications. We need a functioning spectrum market. Retransmission: While the broadcaster outrage has been loud against Jim DeMint’s Senate effort to level the playing field between local broadcasters and cable companies, I have to give Joe Barton credit for picking up the issue in the House . I’ve been critical, but he doesn’t have a bad idea here, and I need to give credit. Cookie privacy’s the hot thing. So even as FCC gave Google only a slap on the wrist over the Street View scandal,
Follow this link:
Tech at Night: LightSquared debates, FCC subsidizing and raising prices, Seven figure fine for Google?
