http://arstechnica.com/…

Two representatives of the Intel Corporation visited the Federal Communications Commission last week to boost the idea requiring IP capability on cable-set top boxes. “Given the marketplace acceptance of IP, Messrs. Lawrence and Greenstein suggested that this regulation should be amended so as to make mandatory the availability of boxes using an IP-based interface that facilitates home networking, such as Ethernet,” Intel’s filing concluded.

Said “Messrs.” included Jeffrey Lawrence, Intel’s director of content policy and attorney Seth D. Greenstein, who on July 15 met with a small army of FCC reps from the offices of Jonathan Adelstein, Michael Copps, the agency’s Media Bureau and the Office of Strategic Analysis. The Intel duo said they dropped by the Commission to discuss the “recent trends in home networking of audiovisual content from cable systems, and the rapid increase in home networks using Internet Protocol.” But Ars guesses that they wanted to offer some precedents for their IP requirement proposal, which they did.

The Intel citations include 2003 FCC regs that require cable operators to offer set tops that include the IEEE 1394 (Firewire) external data bus. Section 76.640(b)(4) of the FCC’s rules mandates that cable companies replace a non-1394 equipped box with an equipped one or upgrade the system by download. The rule has been in place since April of 2004.

Ignoring the political aspects of this why would anyone care about this? They mandated IEEE 1394 and I don’t think many used it. My last cable box has Firewire and USB and neither were used for anything. Sounds to me like the chipset makers just want what effectively comes down to guaranteed business. People want cable, they want a function cable box and they don’t care if it has ethernet, Firewire or USB connectors. Especially when they are generally disabled and useless. It’s just an extra location to collect dust.

http://arstechnica.com/…

The FCC is considering a cap on cable ownership that could spell trouble for Comcast’s growth plans. News of the plan comes hard on the heels of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s push to exert regulatory control over the cable industry, a plan that has so far faltered over concerns about the data used to justify the new FCC authority. The cable ownership cap has the necessary votes, though, and it looks like Martin might bring the industry to heel after all.

According to multiple news sources, the FCC hopes to cap any single company’s control of the cable market at 30 percent. No company has currently exceeded that limit, but Comcast is pressing up against it with 27 percent and would likely be the first company to feel the effects of a new rule.

What exactly is this supposed to do? Prevent a monopoly from forming? How about withdrawing local monopoly status’ of almost all current cable companies so that they may compete if they wish to. With all the different services the cable companies provide, the number of companies involved and those who are entering… there are more than enough players to prevent any mythical monopoly from spawning.

http://www.reuters.com/…

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday voted to ban exclusive deals between building owners and cable television providers to give apartment and condominium dwellers a greater choice of pay television services.

The FCC approved a new rule nullifying existing exclusivity provisions and prohibiting any new ones, saying the deals are unfair and prevent new competitors from providing service in many apartment and condo buildings.

“There is no reason that consumers living in apartment buildings should be locked into one service provider,” FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement.

Why shouldn’t the apartment building owner or condominium’s governors choose who they do business with? If you don’t like the policies don’t sign the contract to live there. This doesn’t create competition… it places one more regulation into the system.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/…

I affirm, I really was going to drop this Ron Paul rant I pursued in my earlier post.

But some facts in this morning’s post by my highly respected Washington, D.C.-centric colleague Declan McCullagh entitled Ron Paul: The Internet’s Favorite Candidate” made me realize there are some lessons that still need to be taught to all you Libertarian-leaning fans of the Republican Presidential candidate.

Read More…

• H.R.2951: Tax Relief for All Workers Act of 2007. Credit and Phaseout percent increase from 7.65 to 15.3 and a Phaseout amount from $5280 to $10700. Not bad. Being single and childless I’m all for it.
• H.R.2925: Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2007. I was in the GT group in grade school. We didn’t get much money from the school so we had bake sales and random things to make the money to go on trips and what not. If these kids are talented they can do the same. Besides… looking back at all the other kids who were in the group… being ‘gifted and talented’ doesn’t mean you amount to anything.
• H.R.2932: To amend title 39, United States Code, to make cigarettes and certain other tobacco products nonmailable, and for other purposes. How can I put this subtly?… Mr. John McHugh of NY-23… your liberty hating, nanny state bullshit is not welcome. Up to $100K fine?!?!
• H.R.2934: To prevent Members of Congress from receiving the automatic pay adjustment scheduled to take effect in 2008. I’m not sure why Mr. Harry Michell is supporting this but I’m all for it.
• S.1731: A bill to provide for the continuing review of unauthorized Federal programs and agencies and to establish a bipartisan commission for the purposes of improving oversight and eliminating wasteful Government spending. Sounds nice in theory… I have a feeling it’d be a waste of time and money.
• H.R.2902: Middle Class Opportunity Act of 2007. Raises the child tax credits to $2k for the first year. The more they give back the better.
• S.1747: Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007. While I agree the presidential signing statement is not the end all of interpretation of a law… but that should not keep a judge from using it as part of their interpretation.
• S.1748: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. This should be obvious. Forced speech does not free speech. Preserve the 1st Amendment.
  

• H.R.2916: Members of Congress Personal Fiscal Responsibility Act. For purposes of the provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect in fiscal year 2008 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems. I’m all for them not raising their pay. They are welcome to change it to change it to the average pay increase percentage of the public at the beginning of each new session.
  
• H.R.2859: Prepare All Kids Act of 2007. “Investments in children and early education should be a national priority.” No… it should be a parents priority. Our current national public school system already screws kids up enough. We don’t need to start indoctrinating them earlier.
• H.R.2918: California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act. To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State of California, and for other purposes. Funny that out of all the House members all the sponsors are from California. Wonder how they have voted with regard to using Alaska and other areas. Looks like a NIMBY situation.
• H.R. 2905: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. This sounds like a solid bill. The federal government has no business telling the private news organizations what to report on.