-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I see that Coinstar now also offers vouchers for Starbucks or iTunes. How do you redeem the voucher with Starbucks? Do they give you a Starbucks card? Regardless, I've got a lot of coffee...
- Dude, I'm just joking with you Applebees. Chill. And yes, the stylus is soooo 1994. But some things from the past are worth preserving.
- Steve: Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points. First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the "pipes" is separate from one that provides the content,...
- My top 5: 1. <a href="http://ww.autohotkey.com/">AutoHotKey</a> - This is a simple yet powerful macro scripting program for Windows. I created a simple one-line script...
- "Don’t understand how you iPhone zombies get along without one." It does not help your argument any when you insist on insulting users of another device. You arguments come off as...
DISQUS
Returning? Login
2 years ago
Tim -- seems to be a rehash of the "bully pulpit" approach, where regulators get firms to do what they want without actually having to go through the messiness of adopting an actual regulation.
I thought Adam Thierer pretty thorougly destroyed this argument in his NRO piece earlier this year (in the context of Kevin Martin's push for cable a la carte):
"...conservatives typically oppose the use of the so-called "enlightening power of the Bully Pulpit," which involves government shaking down private companies for favors. For example, when regulators play this game on the environmental or labor policy fronts, conservatives rightly cry foul. After all, the result being coerced from them is hardly "voluntary;" those firms are only acting because they are facing harsher penalties if they choose not to act."
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/thie...>
A consumer backlash to market behavior is one thing. A threat by government to regulate is entirely another.
2 years ago
However, for those who answer "yes" to this question, a second question is: what form should the action take? And Felten argues persuasively that given the highly speculative and complex nature of the issue, this is a case where the bully pulpit is likely to be better than premature legislation.
I think Adam would probably agree that, much as it rankles all of us to have the FCC informally twisting the cable industry's arms to offer particular programming packages, it could be even worse if the FCC enacted formal regulations on the subject.