Keep plugging away at something long enough in Washington, and in a couple of decades you might see some results.
That appears to be the lesson for Senator Ed Markey, who was crowing after last week’s decision by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to open the set-top cable box market to competition.
Some, however, say that the long fight shows by the time Washington acts, the technology has already moved to a different level.
On Thursday, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC moved forward on new rules for the set-top cable box market. Today, you are probably like 99 percent of cable television customers, who rent whatever box your cable company tells you to, for whatever monthly fee they charge. The new rules, if they are adopted after a period of public input, and if they survive potential legal challenges, would force cable companies to make their systems compatible with competitors’ boxes, allowing you to go out and buy your own in a competitive market.
It also means that you could access all your viewing—of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other services—through the same device as your cable channels.
Markey first started harping on the topic as early as 1992, when as a House member he addressed it in the Cable Act he authored, which regulated the industry. In 1995, as Congress worked on the landmark Telecommunications Act that passed the following year, Markey pushed to ensure competition in cable boxes, along with modems and “any product which is accessible to the information superhighway,” as he put it in a floor speech.
Back then, his catchy slogan at press conferences was “Don’t Box Me In.” These days he uses the hashtag #UnlockTheBox.
Acting under that 1996 law, the FCC set requirements for cable companies in 1998, and again in 2007, trying to ensure cable box competition, while Markey and others pressed for more. Then, in 2014, Republicans set in place a repeal of those requirements, to take place at the end of 2016. Unable to stop that bill, Markey, along with Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal, got authorization for a study, which they released last year, and which in turn prompted the current FCC action.
Markey hails this as a win for consumers. But not everybody agrees.
Cable companies and networks argue that Markey’s push for cable box competition is as outdated as the dial-up modems Markey was talking about in that 1995 House speech.
Among their arguments, they say that Google, TiVo, and other companies want control over the cable box so that they can find ways to make money off of someone else’s content—for example, by selling advertising on the screen based on you’re watching.
That’s not something anybody was worrying about 20 years ago. Whether Markey was ahead of the curve then, or behind the curve now, may be in the eye of the beholder.
Markey and Kennedy push for ratepayer appeals
Twenty years later, Markey is still at it. Earlier this month, he filed a bill intended to give customers a chance to fight new electric rate charges.
The Fair Ratepayer Accountability, Transparency and Efficiency Standards Act (Fair RATES) is the Senate companion to a House bill, sponsored by Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts, which went through an important committee markup this month.
As the Lowell Sun Chronicle reported, it’s not exactly a coincidence the sponsors come from the Bay State, which has seen dramatic recent increases in what are already among the highest rates in the country.
All eight of Kennedy’s fellow Massachusetts House members are among his bill’s 20 co-sponsors. So are all four Democrats from Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. Markey’s only co-sponsor in the Senate so far is Elizabeth Warren.
The Markey and Kennedy bills would ensure the ability to appeal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Kennedy’s bill, which is supported by the American Public Power Association and the Northeast Public Power Association, was voted out of subcommittee on February 10th and now goes to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration.
Scambusters
Let’s be honest: elected officials love any chance to paint themselves as protectors of the ordinary consumer. Both of the above examples are attempts to do just that.
Another avenue is the scam-warning Public Service Announcement. Rhode Island Representative Jim Langevin released one this month, advising people to be on the lookout for tax-related fraudsters as we enter tax-preparation season.
A much more comprehensive effort, however, was released by Maine Senator Susan Collins last week.
Collins, chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, put out a publication detailing the 10 most common frauds victimizing seniors.
IRS impersonation, of the kind Langevin’s ad speaks to, took the number one spot on the list. It was followed by sweepstakes scams, robocalls, computer tech support schemes, identity theft, grandparent scams, financial abuse, grant scams, romance scams, and home improvement scams
