> This will be lobbied into oblivion. Nearly every regulatory issue in telecom (and likely most other industries, but I'll just stick with what I know) is lobb

> This will be lobbied into oblivion. Nearly every regulatory issue in telecom (and likely most other industries, but I'll just stick with what I know) is lobbied extensively by someone. Most issues will, whatever the underlying intent, benefit certain sub-industries over others. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's virtually impossible to propose a regulation that won't affect the market. By definition, regulations are supposed to to affect the market. To assume that "cable" will outright oppose this is false, and overly simplistic. Cable is hardly a monolith, and there are things in this proposal that different types of cable companies could conceivably support. NCTA, the larger cable trade org opposes the measure, while ACA (representing relatively smaller cable companies) supports at least many of the principles behind the proposal[1]. There's a big difference in policy goals between vertically-integrated and non-vertically-integrated cable companies. Comcast, as both a cable company and a content producer, probably does enjoy policies that allow for bundling and would oppose that certain part of the proposal. However, competing cable companies who are not vertically integrated would probably support such a measure. It's not a crazy thought that Independent Cable Co. X would like to pick and choose which channels to buy for its subscribers without being forced into a bundle. In other words, for the same reason that consumers might want this choice, many cable companies could want this as well. The part of the bill that penalizes broadcasters who switch to pay TV is something that probably all cable companies, even the big ones like Comcast, could support. Retransmission consent fees paid by cable companies to broadcasters are increasingly high and a court-blessed Aereo would provide an avenue for cable companies to simply stop paying those fees (or at least give them a good bargaining chip in retrans fee negotiations). Oddly enough, wireless companies (e.g. Verizon) might oppose this part of the proposal. They badly want spectrum, and if FOX and others leave the airwaves, this could help get that spectrum into their hands. As an aside, I think the threats from FOX are hollow for a number of reasons. Anyways, getting a little bit meta here, but the telecom industry is where I've been interning (various places) and would like to work in at some point. There's no reason to expect the average HNer to know these intricacies. However, from what I've learned about telecom, I can at least have a better idea of knowing what I don't know about other policy arenas. Thankfully, this will prevent me from reaching super simple (and often flat out wrong observations) such as "[t]his will be lobbied into oblivion." Obviously lots of money will be spent opposing this, but that's true for nearly any regulatory proposal, and is far from dispositive of any outcome. [1] http://www.fiercecable.com/story/mccain-bill-sparks-conflict-between-aca-and-ncta/2013-05-10 http://www.fiercecable.com/story/mccain-bill-sparks-conflict...