Mark Fleischmann

In a rare admission of "limited success," i.e. failure, the Federal Communications Commission has issued a request for suggestions on how to implement digital cable readiness in the wake of the CableCARD's less than full penetration of the markets for DTVs and cable service.

Stepping up its anti-obscenity campaign, the Federal Communications Commission is asking broadcasters for tapes of live sporting events. Government employees are going to sift through them just to make sure an athlete, coach, or spectator hasn't spoken the f-word or some other weapon of mass corruption. This does not sit well with broadcasters who have added on-field mics and in-car cameras to give viewers more of a you-are-there feeling. "It looks like they want to end live broadcast TV," one anonymous TV executive told The Hollywood Reporter. The latest federal obscenity law imposes fines of as much as $325,000 per violation, a tenfold increase from the former law. It remains unclear how this would affect President Bush, who signed the anti-pottymouth law and then went off to a summit full of world leaders and uttered the s-word into an open mic.

A draft report circulating at the Federal Communications Commission claims Congress can regulate violent television content without violating the First Amendment. Interesting fact: Under the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court, not the FCC, that makes such judgments. According to chairperson Kevin Martin, "there is strong evidence that shows violent media can have an impact on children's behavior and there are some things that can be done about it." Sitting alongside Martin, a Republican, was ranking Democrat Michael Copps: "This is not a red state or a blue state issue," he said. Of the remaining three commissioners, one sides with Martin and Copps, and the other two haven't officially taken a position, giving the pro-censorship bloc a potential 3-2 majority. Even Tony Soprano may not be safe from these guys. Martin wants to exert influence on the cable and satellite networks as well. On the bright side, he wants to do it by giving consumers a chance to buy channels "a la carte," an idea the cable industry has long opposed.

If you wonder what the telcos will be like years from now, when they're raking in the cash from video services, get a load of the way they behaved last month. As soon as the Federal Communications Commission removed some regulatory charges from consumer DSL bills, BellSouth and Verizon quickly tried to add them back and pocket the cash. The deleted charges had gone into the Universal Service Fund, which was originally designed to subsidize phone service in rural areas, and later extended to nurture Internet access in schools. BellSouth DSL customers had paid $2.97 per month into the USF, while Verizon DSL customers had paid $1.25-2.83 (depending on speed of service), until the FCC reclassified DSL and eliminated the fees to give consumers a break. Thereupon BellSouth swiftly imposed a "regulatory cost recovery fee" of $2.97, while Verizon added a "supplier surcharge" of $1.20-2.70. This breathtakingly opportunistic pickpocketing of consumers, greasily interlarded with corporate doublespeak, so enraged FCC chair Kevin Martin that he instantly threatened to send official letters demanding an explanation. He didn't have to send them—BellSouth quickly backed off and Verizon followed a few days later. They've got a lot on their regulatory wish lists, with BellSouth awaiting approval for its absorption into AT&T, and all the telcos eagerly awaiting the replacement of municipal franchise agreements for video service with more relaxed federal and state regulation. If this is what they act like when they're on their best behavior, just imagine what they'll be like at their worst.