Internet Court Ruling to Benefit Terrestrial Radio?

[umtrr-author]

Late to the thread as usual...

In terms of companies limiting access to selected sites... I think it's fairly common. There is not only the issue of YouTube et al sucking up bandwidth and draining employee productivity, there is is also the "hostile work environment" issue that could be caused by someone getting upset at someone else viewing a site that they shouldn't. Even if it's not directly banned, it's definitely monitored and reported back. "I agree that nothing I do on company systems is private" can be an acknowledgement at each sign-on to company equipment.

I would not be surprised to learn that the ISPs already had a scenario planned to throttle down users and/or restrict access to, ahem, "less favorite" sites, that was put into place the instant that the FCC ruling came down.

Given that audio streaming is, as has been noted, not as resource heavy as video streaming, I would imagine quite the backlash if that starts getting restricted. Were streaming to become inoperable, I don't think I would suddenly increase my radio listening, I'd just go back to my iTunes.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The copyright owners want to put ISPs in the content control business. They want to hold ISPs responsible when content is illegally downloaded. They want ISPs to charge their customers for usage of copyrighted content. So there is a movement afoot from record labels, movie companies, and even news providers that would change the role of ISPs. And the ISPs are fighting that.

Which is why I say the government has a contradictory opinion here.

The point of being a "common carrier" is to avoid responsibility for content unless notified by an outside party about illegal content being transported. Copyright owners can want what they want, but that's not the role of a common carrier. On the other hand, a common carrier CANNOT maintain that status and restrict the flow of data based on content. They CAN charge more for people who require higher levels of service.

Remember, a common carrier is based on transportation. Think of UPS. If you ship a package, UPS doesn't look into the package to see what's in it. They may ask you of you're shipping something illegal, and advise your of what packages are illegal, but they're under no obligation to check that package unless they receive information that a crime has been - or is being - committed. They can charge you more for a bigger package. That's the principle involved.

Where things get confusing is where a common carrier takes on a new role as a content provider, or provides services that don't fall under the principle of "common carrier". Comcast, Time Warner, and other are now providing common-carrier services like Internet access and telephone service. Verizon, AT&T and others are providing video and audio channels, and other services that are outside the "common carrier" role. Obviously, there needs to be a difference in the way that services are regulated, not just companies.

Content providers and copyright owners are unlikely to convince either Congress or the courts to rewrite the common carrier laws. The carriers are not committing any offense. The providers and consumers of illegal content are the bad guys here. That's who they need to target.

Comcast's big mistake was to take on its customers based on content, and not on the level of service. They needed to modify their service agreements, not block particular sites or users unless they had a complaint from an interested party that illegal content was being provided.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Late to the thread as usual...

In terms of companies limiting access to selected sites... I think it's fairly common. There is not only the issue of YouTube et al sucking up bandwidth and draining employee productivity, there is is also the "hostile work environment" issue that could be caused by someone getting upset at someone else viewing a site that they shouldn't. Even if it's not directly banned, it's definitely monitored and reported back. "I agree that nothing I do on company systems is private" can be an acknowledgement at each sign-on to company equipment.

A company who purchases Internet access is well within their rights to control access to any content. They also "own" virtually any data that passes on their network. This is light-years different (legally) from an ISP controlling access to sites or services. There are restrictions on "invasion of privacy" - like capturing usernames and passwords of users accessing outside accounts and services, but even that territory is not well-defined. Your admonishment that "nothing I do on company systems is private" is extremely important.

 

[umtrr-author]

Agreed.

I should have been a little more clear in my post, I do mean "employers" not "companies".

The larger a company is, the more likely it is to have a Internet Use and/or a Computer Use Policy, though I'm aware of firms of 50 people that monitor every click and keystroke.

 

[TheBigA]

Content providers and copyright owners are unlikely to convince either Congress or the courts to rewrite the common carrier laws. The carriers are not committing any offense. The providers and consumers of illegal content are the bad guys here. That's who they need to target.

What you're missing here is that the roles these companies play is changing. What this court decision said is that the FCC can't assume it's common carrier authority, derived from telecom, also applies to the internet. It was easy to define common carriers when you talk about a telecom company and personal phone conversations. It's a completely different thing when we have ISPs who are also content providers who are also telecom companies who are competing with other content providers for access to the same broadband. This is why the government broke up movie studios and theater chains, owning the content as well as the distribution. If these companies are going to be viewed and regulated as strictly common carriers, then they can't get into content creation and ownership, which throws a monkey wrench into the Comcast-NBC deal, and also requires a look at things like Time-Warner Cable and HBO, CNN, and the rest of their owned cable channels...because they have a vested interest in promoting their owned channels.

 

[listener-in]

If these companies are going to be viewed and regulated as strictly common carriers, then they can't get into content creation and ownership, which throws a monkey wrench into the Comcast-NBC deal.....

Let's hope so.

......and also requires a look at things like Time-Warner Cable and HBO, CNN, and the rest of their owned cable channels...because they have a vested interest in promoting their owned channels.

Aren't Time Warner and Time Warner Cable separate companies now?

 

[TheBigA]

Aren't Time Warner and Time Warner Cable separate companies now?

Good call...I see the split happened a year ago.

Still, prior to the split, you had a company that controlled content AND distribution. An integrated company like that, in my view, can't operate strictly as a common carrier. They have vested interests in the content that they distribute.

 

[SirRoxalot]

A, did you miss this paragraph?

Where things get confusing is where a common carrier takes on a new role as a content provider, or provides services that don't fall under the principle of "common carrier". Comcast, Time Warner, and other are now providing common-carrier services like Internet access and telephone service. Verizon, AT&T and others are providing video and audio channels, and other services that are outside the "common carrier" role. Obviously, there needs to be a difference in the way that services are regulated, not just companies.

Note particularly the last sentence: Obviously, there needs to be a difference in the way that services are regulated, not just companies.

Change is comin'. What Comcast tried to do was NOT net-neutral because it targeted specific sites or content. Setting multiple bandwidth consumption tiers, and charging different for those tiers IS net-neutral. Offering other services in addition to Internet access has nothing to do with net neutrality.

The crux of the decision is that the FCC assumed a role in regulating ISPs that has not been specifically assigned to it by Congress - without even adopting actual FCC rules. The outcome is likely to be a bill that gives them the power to regulate ISPs, but reinforces the concept of net-neutrality. Add language to reduce the "digital divide", and you have a new set of taxes, and a new piece of legislation that should actually get support form both sides of the aisle.

What it means for radio is increased competition from the Internet, and smart-phone aps. If you don't have content that listeners value, and can't get elsewhere, your audience is going to dwindle. If you don't have web support for your content, your audience is going to dwindle. Companies struggling under huge debt loads are going to be in big trouble if they can't shed that debt quickly so they can invest in programming and Internet distribution.

 

[TheBigA]

The outcome is likely to be a bill that gives them the power to regulate ISPs, but reinforces the concept of net-neutrality. Add language to reduce the "digital divide", and you have a new set of taxes, and a new piece of legislation that should actually get support form both sides of the aisle.

Taxing the internet? And you think that's a slam dunk?

Companies struggling under huge debt loads are going to be in big trouble if they can't shed that debt quickly so they can invest in programming and Internet distribution.

The radio companies that are spending on internet content and distribution are the same ones struggling to stay afloat. There have been no layoffs in the new media departments at Clear Channel, Citadel, or Cumulus. The ones who often don't even have web sites, much less original content for the internet, are the smaller companies that still operate like it's 1988.

 

[Element9]

Most radio stations' websites are no more than razzle-dazzle bumper stickers with cute promos and pix, and web-polls that don't mean spit. And when it comes to listening on-line, Pandora destroys terrestrial radio's on-line streams. I'd suspect many have said, on-line and over the air, it's all about content.

 

[TheBigA]

And when it comes to listening on-line, Pandora destroys terrestrial radio's on-line streams.

Only if you believe Pandora's press releases. The fact is the typical Pandora user listens for 7 songs a week. That's what I'd call terrible TSL. On the other hand, local radio streams are getting longer stretches of listenership than on their broadcast channels. Why? In-the-workplace listening. It's through the roof. So if it's all about the content, it's better on traditional radio than Pandora.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The outcome is likely to be a bill that gives them the power to regulate ISPs, but reinforces the concept of net-neutrality. Add language to reduce the "digital divide", and you have a new set of taxes, and a new piece of legislation that should actually get support form both sides of the aisle.

Taxing the internet? And you think that's a slam dunk?

Yup. Just like your phone bill. There is destined to be either a separate "surcharge" to extend high-speed Internet coverage to rural areas, or the state Public Utility Commissions (The Public Service Commission in NY) will simply require telecoms to provide equal high-speed access to all parts of the state if they want to offer service to ANYBODY in the state. The precedents are there with both telephone and electrical service. The Feds may even loan them the money to pay for the extension of service, just as they did with both phone and electrical utilities.

 

[SirRoxalot]

And when it comes to listening on-line, Pandora destroys terrestrial radio's on-line streams.

Only if you believe Pandora's press releases. The fact is the typical Pandora user listens for 7 songs a week. That's what I'd call terrible TSL. On the other hand, local radio streams are getting longer stretches of listenership than on their broadcast channels. Why? In-the-workplace listening. It's through the roof. So if it's all about the content, it's better on traditional radio than Pandora.

Like to know the source of your info, A. It's radically different than the study just released by Edison Research, which was heavily quoted in today's Taylor on Radio-Info column. You can check out that study here.

 

[TheBigA]

Like to know the source of your info, A.

Harker Research, as quoted at Radio Business Report:

http://www.rbr.com/features/viewpoints/23192.html

Bridge Ratings today also credited traditional radio streams as beating internet-only streams in TSL.

So when they are on the same platform, as in, when traditional radio and internet-only radio are available as internet streams, traditional radio streams seem to do better, especially in terms of TSL. So it's not the content that's hurting traditional radio, but the platform.

 

[TheBigA]

The precedents are there with both telephone and electrical service.

The court just ruled that the FCC can't use it's authority in telephone regulation as justification for the same over the internet. That's what this thread is about. So that precedent would not apply.

This is not to say that the gov't won't try to do what you say. Just that it'll be tied up in courts for a long time.

 

[SirRoxalot]

That's exactly what the court ruling said - that the FCC can't ASSUME the power to regulate the Internet without specifically being granted rule-making powers by Congress. The court also pointed out that the FCC hasn't even enacted specific rules regarding "net neutrality", so it was on very weak legal ground.

The precedents set by electrical and telephone services simply establish the framework that Congress needs for establishing FCC regulation over net neutrality. Those are precedents that will put the opposition to net neutrality on very shaky legal ground.

If this ruling stands, it will require Congress to act, extending the FCC's power to regulate Internet access on a national level, and empowering state Public Utilities Commissions to regulate Internet access service in the same way that they do other utilities. Note that this is regulation of ACCESS, not CONTENT.

I believe that the current administration will do whatever it takes - court action or Congressional action - to assure net neutrality. It will NOT prevent ISPs from creating different tiers of service based on traffic, not content.

 

[TheBigA]

Note that this is regulation of ACCESS, not CONTENT.

But the government right now is opposed to any restrictions on access or content.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Note that this is regulation of ACCESS, not CONTENT.

But the government right now is opposed to any restrictions on access or content.

The government is in favor of extending access to the great majority of people. In fact, they'll likely force telecoms to extend high-speed to areas where it's not profitable. Most telecoms would like to cherry-pick the big cities with high population density, skimming big profits, and ignore rural areas where it costs more to provide service than they can command in fees. "The government" will very likely require telecoms to extend high-speed service to rural areas, and allow them to pay for it by charging higher fees in urban areas. Once again, see the telephone and electrical service models.

 

[TheBigA]

"The government" will very likely require telecoms to extend high-speed service to rural areas, and allow them to pay for it by charging higher fees in urban areas. Once again, see the telephone and electrical service models.

If the FCC is "the government," they have already proposed what they'll do, and how it will be paid. And they have NOT said they would allow ISPs to charge higher fees, and they will NOT allow tiered pricing for access or services. Please read the FCC proposal. It doesn't follow the telephone or electrical service models. They want universal access to high speed broadband, and they want it affordable to all.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The ONLY way to make universal access to high speed broadband affordable to all is to make pricing relatively uniform across regions, if not across the country. If you do that, people in areas with high population density will subsidize service in areas of low population density. The cost of providing high speed Internet access has the same issues as providing phone service or electrical service - it's prohibitively expensive in rural areas, and relatively cheap in urban areas.

Tiered pricing for access or services is already a reality. I pay more if I want faster service, be it DSL, cable, or Verizon FiOS. Even within the same technology, different speeds have different prices. The FCC proposal doesn't change that model. None of these practices violate net neutrality.

The court case in question is about throttling down or interrupting service to selected websites. That violates net neutrality.