FCC Sticks It to Satellite Subscribers

[Steve Mehs]

Unbelievable. That about sums up the FCC's recent Order on MVDDS interference, which FCC bureaucrats have deemed acceptable.

Never mind that 17.5 million Americans have bought, installed and pay monthly fees to receive DBS service. Never mind DBS licensees and their suppliers, distributors and retailers have spent billions developing and delivering this service. In a slap to the face of every existing and would-be DBS subscriber, a majority of Commissioners have decided that it's perfectly okay to reduce the quality of the service in order to give a piece of the DBS spectrum to the politically wired MVDDS services. We've always wondered why, since he became the FCC's grand honcho, Michael Powell has routinely turned down invitations to speak at satellite events while slavering attention on the cable and broadcast interests. Now we know.

FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin said it best in his dissent: "...the Commission is placing to much of the burden of MVDDS deployment on the backs of DBS licensees and their customers. The arbitrary nature of the technical requirements in this item are both disappointing and troubling. By law, DBS service is entitled to protection from 'harmful interference.' Even more important, existing DBS customers deserve to be protected from unreasonable interference. This item does neither."

From SkyReport (http://www.skyreport.com) (Used with Permission)

[Adam Richey]

Well, the FCC is associated with the government, so there's really nothing more I need to say about this MORONIC decision.

[invaliduser88]

Don't you just love government for sale to the highest bidder!

[Scott Greczkowski]

Wow thats an unusual story for Skyreport, its more like an editorial then an actual news report.

And with the way that one is written lets hope they stick to the news. :)

[scooper]

You know - this is the 3rd place I've seen this, and not ONE of them has referenced the actual FCC document.

[BearsFan]

Originally posted by scooper
You know - this is the 3rd place I've seen this, and not ONE of them has referenced the actual FCC document.

I've seen it 2 other places.

I still have no idea what this deal means, and what the implications are. :shrug:

--BearsFan

[Mark Holtz]

IIRC, it's Northpoint, and in this assorted history, they wanted to get the spectrum for free.

[scooper]

It might well be Northpoint, but SHOW ME THE FCC ORDER !!

[BearsFan]

Originally posted by Z'Loth
IIRC, it's Northpoint, and in this assorted history, they wanted to get the spectrum for free.

IIRC = ??????????

Northpoint = ???????????

Phrase that best fits me, I guess: "I'm your DENSITY." :blush:

Still lost,

--BearsFan

[Richard King]

http://ftp.fcc.gov/Speeches/Copps/Statements/2002/stmjc221.pdf

Interesting, it appears that the successful bidders will not be subject to must carry for these terrestrial frequencies. I have a real problem with this. Everyone has insisted that satellite must be subject to the same rules as cable in terms of MC, why not the winners of these auctions? Political connections again? I would like to see Dish and DTV (assuming no merger) get into these auctions and if they win, remove locals from satellite and delegate them to these new frequencies, supplying only the local channels that people really want. Use the additional bandwidth for high speed internet.

[Adam Richey]

I think must-carry should be required for ANY DBS satellite provider. If it is not, it's basically a pick-and-choose law as to who has to carry certain channels, and that's NOT right.

[TNGTony]

Originally posted by BearsFan


IIRC = ??????????

Northpoint = ???????????

IIRC= If I Remember Correctly

For other acronyms I suggest you go to the DBSTalk home page and check out the Acronym page.

Northpoint is a company that proposed a new terrestrial service multi-channel service using the same spectrum as DBS does. The trick is that it will set up its broadcasting towers north of each service area with (virtually) no signal spill to the north. (at least that's the plan). This would allow some one to point a small dish to the north and have a competing service. The problem is that EM transmissions like to bounce off things. There is very much concern that the signal will interfere with DBS to the point that some will be unable to receive satellite service. The FCC says it should be okay. DBS companies disagree. The battle rages on.

See ya
Tony

[Richard King]

I think must-carry should be required for ANY DBS satellite provider. If it is not, it's basically a pick-and-choose law as to who has to carry certain channels, and that's NOT right.
No problem there, but these new services will not be subject to must carry regulations as they should. This is giving these new services the ability to pick what local channels they want to broadcast, while cable and satellite must continue to send them all if they send one.

[Adam Richey]

That biased approach does NOT make our government look very good on this issue. I guess it's who you know.

[MarkA]

See why we need a democratic government? (note - democratic, not Democratic (BIG D being like the political party)

[RJS1111111]

Originally posted by Mark
See why we need a democratic government? (note - democratic, not Democratic (BIG D being like the political party)

Mark,

But we've got something better - the ILLUSION of democracy, or what we like to call VIRTUAL democracy. It's much easier and more convenient, causing little or no disruption to the existing centers of power. It appears that we will soon have a WORLDWIDE virtual democracy, which is of course an improvement, because it is bigger, and one size fits all!

Does anyone remember when the USA called itself a constitutional representative republic, not a democracy?

[Lyle_JP]

Does anyone remember when the USA called itself a constitutional representative republic, not a democracy?

There's a damn good reason why the founding fathers didn't make us a true democracy. True democracies can be the most fickle, capricious, and even downright tyrannical of all forms of government.

Basically, you only need 51% of the people agreeing to take away the personal property and land of the other 49%, and those in the 49% group can do nothing about it.

That's why our Constitution stresses the rights of the individual over the rights of any group. The idea of the "good of the many" is featured nowhere in our Constitution. Our system of government was initially set up so that not one person or government body would have too much power while at the same time avoiding the tyranny of "majority rules". Truth be told, the first President to start extoling the virtures of a "democracy", and spreading "democracy" across the globe (instead of individual "freedom", which previous administrations held in the highest regard) was Franklin Roosevelt.

-Lyle J.P.

[RJS1111111]

Lyle,

I agree completely. Virtual democracy is even worse. A tyrannical minority controls the THINKING of the majority.

[invaliduser88]

Back to the original discuession. So the FCC was given it's blessing to allow Northpoint to potentially interference with DBS.

No matter what they say, I can see this creating DBS deadzones due to interfence.

HMMM, I bet the cable companies were dancing in the streets when they heard this.

[Richard King]

That biased approach does NOT make our government look very good on this issue. I guess it's who you know.
The "connections" that Northpoint has forged in Washington is the only reason that this issue has gotten to the stage that it has at this time. The company is stuffed with political types and their relatives/friends.