<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Naily Snews &#187; FCC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nailysnews.com/category/fcc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nailysnews.com</link>
	<description>You never lose with the SNEWS!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 04:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A Verizon / AT&amp;T merger?  Its more possible than you think.</title>
		<link>http://nailysnews.com/2010/01/24/a-verizon-att-merger-its-more-possible-than-you-think/</link>
		<comments>http://nailysnews.com/2010/01/24/a-verizon-att-merger-its-more-possible-than-you-think/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Isanberg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nailysnews.com/?p=158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the 1980s, the US government broke up AT&#38;T, insisting there was a monopoly over phone services.  The big gigantic company was split into &#8220;baby bells&#8221; all over the country, mixed in with competing long distance companies like Sprint, MCI and AT&#38;T. As we hit a new decade, those companies have merged and merged, leaving [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the 1980s, the US government broke up AT&amp;T, insisting there was a monopoly over phone services.  The big gigantic company was split into &#8220;baby bells&#8221; all over the country, mixed in with competing long distance companies like Sprint, MCI and AT&amp;T.</p>
<p>As we hit a new decade, those companies have merged and merged, leaving us with 2 powerhouses: Verizon and AT&amp;T.  Only one thing is left, for Ma Bell to become whole again.</p>
<p>The truth is that the services that AT&amp;T had a monopoly on in the 1980s no longer exist.  The phone companies offer a powerful suite of services including internet access and TV service, along with the dying legacy business of local and long distance phone service.  The competitors are no longer other phone companies, but cable companies with competing digital broadband pipes.</p>
<p>Oh, and mobile phones too.  Verizon and AT&amp;T have become significantly better known, marketing-wise, for their mobile networks, compared to the so-called dumb pipes.  They currently run their networks using incompatible technologies (CDMA for Verizon, GSM for AT&amp;T).  Both services, however, are transitioning into 4G LTE networks, that would be compatible with each other.  The mobile divisions may be the biggest antitrust issue with a potential AT&amp;T/Verizon merger, but the rest of the elements in the modern &#8220;Triple Play&#8221; business of Phone.</p>
<p>Do you project a Verizon / AT&amp;T merger attempt in the next decade?  Do you think that they are already talking about it?  Discuss!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nailysnews.com/2010/01/24/a-verizon-att-merger-its-more-possible-than-you-think/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comparing the Obama FCC to the Bush FCC</title>
		<link>http://nailysnews.com/2009/09/23/comparing-the-obama-fcc-to-the-bush-fcc/</link>
		<comments>http://nailysnews.com/2009/09/23/comparing-the-obama-fcc-to-the-bush-fcc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Isanberg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chocolate Pudding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Decency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Net Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nailysnews.com/?p=76</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Monday in Washington, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unveiled some details into the definition and enforcement of Net Neutrality.  Net Neutrality, as famously mentioned in Amanda Congdon’s final episode of Rocketboom, is the idea that an internet provider cannot block certain websites, but allow others.  This model is the opposite of how the cable [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;">On Monday in Washington, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unveiled some details into the definition and enforcement of Net Neutrality.  Net Neutrality, as famously mentioned in <a title="Rocketboom Net Neutrality" href="http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_06_jun_23/">Amanda Congdon’s final episode of Rocketboom</a>, is the idea that an internet provider cannot block certain websites, but allow others.  This model is the opposite of how the cable industry works, with priority placement of big name networks (CNN, MTV, A&amp;E, etc) while pushing niche networks to higher channel number, or not at all.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The FCC, under Democratic leadership since Barack Obama became President, is preaching open access to communication.  This is clearly a very different approach than how the commission operated during the Bush administration.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Clearly, the defining moment of the FCC during Bush’s reign can be summed up by two words: Janet Jackson.  The 2004 incident, which took place during the Super Bowl halftime show, resulted in Jackson’s bare breast being shown, albeit for a very brief moment.  The FCC chose to fine CBS, because it was “indecent”.  Most news from the FCC during this era was about fining broadcasters for indecency, although there never were (and still currently isn’t) specific guidelines on what by law is considered decent or indecent.  This was a large part of Howard Stern’s rhetoric, to the point where he took his highly rated radio show and moved it to Sirius Satellite radio, to greater freedom of speech, but a significantly smaller listener base.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The FCC is now working to make sure that content isn’t blocked, unlike the previous administration, which sought out to block content.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Do you think that there should be concrete decency/indecency standards?  Should broadband providers be allowed to block content it doesn’t approve of (like P2P servers)?  Discuss.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nailysnews.com/2009/09/23/comparing-the-obama-fcc-to-the-bush-fcc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

