https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/

For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract feuds that
routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.

Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side blames the
other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new confidential
deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the end user.
Wash, rinse, repeat.

For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly ignored
how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory position
might be finally changing.

The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last longer than
24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:

"Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When consumers with
traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they should get
what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and leave
viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite show, or
the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."

Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful implementation
will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the agency's
strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media regulator that
spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely being
ripped off.

On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>
> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract feuds that
> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>
> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side blames the
> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new confidential
> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the end user.
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>
> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly ignored
> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory position
> might be finally changing.
>
> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last longer than
> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>
> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When consumers with
> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they should get
> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and leave
> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite show, or
> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>
> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful implementation
> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the agency's
> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media regulator that
> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely being
> ripped off.

It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:39:37 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>>
>> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract feuds that
>> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>>
>> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
>> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side blames the
>> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
>> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
>> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new confidential
>> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the end user.
>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>
>> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
>> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly ignored
>> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory position
>> might be finally changing.
>>
>> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
>> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last longer than
>> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>>
>> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When consumers with
>> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they should get
>> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and leave
>> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite show, or
>> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>>
>> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful implementation
>> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the agency's
>> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media regulator that
>> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely being
>> ripped off.
>
>It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
>for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".
>

Or everyone could move to a Comcast area and never experience the
black outs.. Though you do get regular price increases but that is the
down side to never fighting a price increase.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Or everyone could move to a Comcast area and never experience the
>black outs.. Though you do get regular price increases but that is the
>down side to never fighting a price increase.

Yeah. Comcast is rather vertically integrated, isn't it.

On 10/14/2023 9:39 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>>
>> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract
>> feuds that
>> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>>
>> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
>> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side
>> blames the
>> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
>> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
>> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new
>> confidential
>> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the
>> end user.
>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>
>> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
>> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly
>> ignored
>> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory
>> position
>> might be finally changing.
>>
>> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
>> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last
>> longer than
>> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>>
>> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When
>> consumers with
>> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they
>> should get
>> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and
>> leave
>> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite
>> show, or
>> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>>
>> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful
>> implementation
>> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the
>> agency's
>> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media
>> regulator that
>> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely
>> being
>> ripped off.
>
> It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
> for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".
>
Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Oct 15, 2023 at 12:13:32 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
wrote:

> On 10/14/2023 9:39 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>> On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>>>
>>> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract
>>> feuds that
>>> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>>>
>>> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
>>> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side
>>> blames the
>>> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
>>> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
>>> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new
>>> confidential
>>> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the
>>> end user.
>>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>>
>>> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
>>> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly
>>> ignored
>>> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory
>>> position
>>> might be finally changing.
>>>
>>> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
>>> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last
>>> longer than
>>> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>>>
>>> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When
>>> consumers with
>>> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they
>>> should get
>>> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and
>>> leave
>>> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite
>>> show, or
>>> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>>>
>>> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful
>>> implementation
>>> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the
>>> agency's
>>> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media
>>> regulator that
>>> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely
>>> being
>>> ripped off.
>>
>> It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
>> for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".
>>
> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.

Or, conversely, the agencies are set up under the wrong branch of government.
Instead of the Executive Branch, they could be set up under the Legislative
Branch and avoid the issue altogether.

On 10/14/23 8:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>
> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract feuds that
> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.

Yes, and everyone knows pennies on the dollar is always a super fun
topic of conversation, especially when you're trying to avoid the latest
round of shitty stuff happening with the GQP such as being too fucking
incompetent to come up with a Speaker of the House? Jim Jordan?
Really? My dog takes shits with more credibility than he has.

>
> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side blames the
> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new confidential
> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the end user.
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>
> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly ignored
> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory position
> might be finally changing.
>
> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last longer than
> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>
> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When consumers with
> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they should get
> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and leave
> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite show, or
> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>
> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful implementation
> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the agency's
> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media regulator that
> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely being
> ripped off.
>
>

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>>. . .
>
>Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.

We aren't there yet.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the newly-added Relentless,
Inc. v. Department of Commerce will be heard jointly in January. The
cases are about the wrongful application of the Chevron Doctrine, but
Clarence Thomas and possibly John Roberts could always attempt to use
the cases to get support to overrule Chevron v. NRDC, which was a Stevens
decision. When Congress fails to write a statute that's very specific on a
technical issue, courts will defer to the administration's interpretation
of the technical issue given the presumption of government expertise on
the matter.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services
Association of America, Limited would find the funding mechanism for the
CFPB in violation of the appropriations clause of the Constitution.

Previous cases attempting to find its authorization law unconstitutional
wouldn't apply across the board. CFPB's authorization law is alleged
to violate the presidential appointments clause in that term of office
for the administrator does not end with the end of the administration
and the next administration cannot fire the agency head if it cannot
force a resignation to create a vacancy. This argument hasn't worked at
the Supreme Court in the recent past.

There are specific agencies and boards that are like this: The Fed,
obviously, FTC, FCC (although the chairman traditionally resigns), Post
Office Board of Governors (the postmaster general hasn't been a
presidential appointment since the Nixon administration), and FDA come
to mind. There are others. Executive departments are all led by
political appointees.

It wouldn't apply to the whole of government.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 2023 at 12:13:32 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2023 9:39 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>> On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>>>>
>>>> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract
>>>> feuds that
>>>> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
>>>> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side
>>>> blames the
>>>> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
>>>> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
>>>> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new
>>>> confidential
>>>> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the
>>>> end user.
>>>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>>>
>>>> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
>>>> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly
>>>> ignored
>>>> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory
>>>> position
>>>> might be finally changing.
>>>>
>>>> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
>>>> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last
>>>> longer than
>>>> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>>>>
>>>> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When
>>>> consumers with
>>>> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they
>>>> should get
>>>> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and
>>>> leave
>>>> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite
>>>> show, or
>>>> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>>>>
>>>> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful
>>>> implementation
>>>> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the
>>>> agency's
>>>> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media
>>>> regulator that
>>>> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely
>>>> being
>>>> ripped off.
>>>
>>> It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
>>> for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".
>>>
>> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>
>Or, conversely, the agencies are set up under the wrong branch of government.
>Instead of the Executive Branch, they could be set up under the Legislative
>Branch and avoid the issue altogether.

My state legislature has a Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, with
members from both houses, that sustains or overrules proposed agency
rules. This avoids the constitutional problem. Congress could do this.
It would be mind-numbing work.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 09:03:33 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>On Oct 15, 2023 at 12:13:32 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/14/2023 9:39 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>>>>>
>>>>> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract
>>>>> feuds that
>>>>> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
>>>>> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side
>>>>> blames the
>>>>> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
>>>>> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
>>>>> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new
>>>>> confidential
>>>>> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the
>>>>> end user.
>>>>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
>>>>> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly
>>>>> ignored
>>>>> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory
>>>>> position
>>>>> might be finally changing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
>>>>> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last
>>>>> longer than
>>>>> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When
>>>>> consumers with
>>>>> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they
>>>>> should get
>>>>> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and
>>>>> leave
>>>>> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite
>>>>> show, or
>>>>> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>>>>>
>>>>> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful
>>>>> implementation
>>>>> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the
>>>>> agency's
>>>>> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media
>>>>> regulator that
>>>>> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely
>>>>> being
>>>>> ripped off.
>>>>
>>>> It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
>>>> for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".
>>>>
>>> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>>> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>>> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>>> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>>> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>>> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>>
>>Or, conversely, the agencies are set up under the wrong branch of government.
>>Instead of the Executive Branch, they could be set up under the Legislative
>>Branch and avoid the issue altogether.
>
>My state legislature has a Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, with
>members from both houses, that sustains or overrules proposed agency
>rules. This avoids the constitutional problem. Congress could do this.
>It would be mind-numbing work.

So it would be perfect for people like Lauren Boebert or Marjorie
Taylor Greene.

On 10/15/23 4:47 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2023 at 12:13:32 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2023 9:39 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>> On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>>>>
>>>> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract
>>>> feuds that
>>>> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
>>>> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side
>>>> blames the
>>>> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
>>>> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
>>>> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new
>>>> confidential
>>>> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the
>>>> end user.
>>>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>>>
>>>> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
>>>> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly
>>>> ignored
>>>> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory
>>>> position
>>>> might be finally changing.
>>>>
>>>> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
>>>> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last
>>>> longer than
>>>> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>>>>
>>>> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When
>>>> consumers with
>>>> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they
>>>> should get
>>>> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and
>>>> leave
>>>> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite
>>>> show, or
>>>> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>>>>
>>>> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful
>>>> implementation
>>>> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the
>>>> agency's
>>>> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media
>>>> regulator that
>>>> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely
>>>> being
>>>> ripped off.
>>>
>>> It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
>>> for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".
>>>
>> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>
> Or, conversely, the agencies are set up under the wrong branch of government.
> Instead of the Executive Branch, they could be set up under the Legislative
> Branch and avoid the issue altogether.
>
>

Grate idea! Give the job to the same people WHO CAN'T ELECT THEIR OWN
PARTY TO THE SPEAKERSHIP!

That'll fix it! But first you'll have to teach them to wipe their own
asses.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/15/23 6:01 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 09:03:33 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 2023 at 12:13:32 AM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/14/2023 9:39 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/23 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/13/fcc-wants-consumers-to-get-refunds-for-annoying-cable-tv-contract-blackouts/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract
>>>>>> feuds that
>>>>>> routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content
>>>>>> negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side
>>>>>> blames the
>>>>>> other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable
>>>>>> adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever
>>>>>> getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new
>>>>>> confidential
>>>>>> deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the
>>>>>> end user.
>>>>>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this but generally
>>>>>> treated these disputes as just "boys being boys", and fairly broadly
>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>> how customers were getting screwed. There's a chance this regulatory
>>>>>> position
>>>>>> might be finally changing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FCC says it's now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and
>>>>>> broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last
>>>>>> longer than
>>>>>> 24 hours and provide potential refunds for users:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Enough with the blackouts," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "When
>>>>>> consumers with
>>>>>> traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they
>>>>>> should get
>>>>>> what they pay for. It's not right when big companies battle it out and
>>>>>> leave
>>>>>> viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite
>>>>>> show, or
>>>>>> the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a refund."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful
>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>> will require consistent FCC enforcement-- which is not exactly the
>>>>>> agency's
>>>>>> strong suit-- but it's still a notable improvement for a media
>>>>>> regulator that
>>>>>> spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> ripped off.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's probably redundant in most scenarios - I did get a (modest) rebate
>>>>> for the recent Spectrum-Disney "blackout".
>>>>>
>>>> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>>>> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>>>> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>>>> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>>>> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>>>> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>>>
>>> Or, conversely, the agencies are set up under the wrong branch of government.
>>> Instead of the Executive Branch, they could be set up under the Legislative
>>> Branch and avoid the issue altogether.
>>
>> My state legislature has a Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, with
>> members from both houses, that sustains or overrules proposed agency
>> rules. This avoids the constitutional problem. Congress could do this.
>> It would be mind-numbing work.
>
> So it would be perfect for people like Lauren Boebert or Marjorie
> Taylor Greene.
>

Yes, Congress. The people who can't agree on what day it is.
Or who's the true president. (Don't know why that's so hard... it was
in all the papers.)

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

In article <ugg9og$dsai$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >>. . .
> >
> >Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
> >agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
> >deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
> >plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
> >to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
> >Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>
> We aren't there yet.
>
> Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the newly-added Relentless,
> Inc. v. Department of Commerce will be heard jointly in January. The
> cases are about the wrongful application of the Chevron Doctrine, but
> Clarence Thomas and possibly John Roberts could always attempt to use
> the cases to get support to overrule Chevron v. NRDC, which was a Stevens
> decision. When Congress fails to write a statute that's very specific on a
> technical issue, courts will defer to the administration's interpretation
> of the technical issue given the presumption of government expertise on
> the matter.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! You said "government expertise".

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>>>agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>>>deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>>>plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>>>to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>>>Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.

>>We aren't there yet.

>>Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the newly-added Relentless,
>>Inc. v. Department of Commerce will be heard jointly in January. The
>>cases are about the wrongful application of the Chevron Doctrine, but
>>Clarence Thomas and possibly John Roberts could always attempt to use
>>the cases to get support to overrule Chevron v. NRDC, which was a Stevens
>>decision. When Congress fails to write a statute that's very specific on a
>>technical issue, courts will defer to the administration's interpretation
>>of the technical issue given the presumption of government expertise on
>>the matter.

>Hahahahahahahahahaha! You said "government expertise".

I made the slightest effort not to make that sound like a straight line.

On 10/15/23 3:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ugg9og$dsai$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>>
>>> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>>> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>>> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>>> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>>> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>>> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>>
>> We aren't there yet.
>>
>> Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the newly-added Relentless,
>> Inc. v. Department of Commerce will be heard jointly in January. The
>> cases are about the wrongful application of the Chevron Doctrine, but
>> Clarence Thomas and possibly John Roberts could always attempt to use
>> the cases to get support to overrule Chevron v. NRDC, which was a Stevens
>> decision. When Congress fails to write a statute that's very specific on a
>> technical issue, courts will defer to the administration's interpretation
>> of the technical issue given the presumption of government expertise on
>> the matter.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahaha! You said "government expertise".

Your party can't even choose their own Speaker, paralyzing the government.

Your side can't fund the government, long term, paralyzing the
business/financial sector.

Your side can't confirm an Ambassador to Israel (and a few other Mid
Eastern countries) when they're at war, paralyzing the State Department.

Your side can't confirm heads of the Military, paralyzing our armed forces.

You're a fucking moron, but a funny one.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/15/23 2:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ugg9og$dsai$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>>
>>> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>>> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they may
>>> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional. The
>>> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>>> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>>> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>>
>> We aren't there yet.
>>
>> Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the newly-added Relentless,
>> Inc. v. Department of Commerce will be heard jointly in January. The
>> cases are about the wrongful application of the Chevron Doctrine, but
>> Clarence Thomas and possibly John Roberts could always attempt to use
>> the cases to get support to overrule Chevron v. NRDC, which was a Stevens
>> decision. When Congress fails to write a statute that's very specific on a
>> technical issue, courts will defer to the administration's interpretation
>> of the technical issue given the presumption of government expertise on
>> the matter.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahaha! You said "government expertise".

Since you claimed to work for the gubmint I can see why that's funny as
fuck.

On 10/15/23 7:50 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/15/23 3:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <ugg9og$dsai$1@dont-email.me>,
>>   "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>> Any of this happening is contingent on the Supreme Court as they have
>>>> agreed to hear a couple of cases this term where it is possible they
>>>> may
>>>> deem all government regulatory agencies unconstitutional.  The
>>>> plantiffs' theories being that the Constitution does not allow Congress
>>>> to pass laws to give agencies the authority to write regulations,
>>>> Congress has to write and vote on all of the regs themselves.
>>>
>>> We aren't there yet.
>>>
>>> Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the newly-added Relentless,
>>> Inc. v. Department of Commerce will be heard jointly in January. The
>>> cases are about the wrongful application of the Chevron Doctrine, but
>>> Clarence Thomas and possibly John Roberts could always attempt to use
>>> the cases to get support to overrule Chevron v. NRDC, which was a
>>> Stevens
>>> decision. When Congress fails to write a statute that's very specific
>>> on a
>>> technical issue, courts will defer to the administration's
>>> interpretation
>>> of the technical issue given the presumption of government expertise on
>>> the matter.
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahahaha! You said "government expertise".
>
>
> Your party can't even choose their own Speaker, paralyzing the government.
>
> Your side can't fund the government, long term, paralyzing the
> business/financial sector.
>
> Your side can't confirm an Ambassador to Israel (and a few other Mid
> Eastern countries) when they're at war, paralyzing the State Department.
>
> Your side can't confirm heads of the Military, paralyzing our armed forces.
>
> You're a fucking moron, but a funny one.

Don't forget "your side has a U.S. Representative giving a guy a handjob
in a public place."