FCC Republicans again attempt to weaken media ownership rule

spendi

Did you see the BBC production "House of Cards" with Ian Richardson? http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/house_of_cards.shtml

I'd seen it quite a few years ago but Lola and I just went through the 16 hours (or whatever) of it. Extraordinary work, even better than I remember.

0 Replies

FCC To Vote On Ownership Rules Review
FCC To Vote On Ownership Rules Review

WASHINGTON -- November 20, 2007: The FCC is set to vote on at least part of its media-ownership rules at its next open meeting, set for Tuesday, November 27.

The just-released agenda for the meeting says the FCC will vote on a Report and Order in the 2006 quadrennial rules review and consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking "concerning initiatives designed to increase participation in the broadcasting industry by new entrants and small businesses, including minority- and women-owned businesses."

It's unclear what actions, if any, the agecny may take in the R&O, and which rules will be subject to further consideration under the FNPRM.

Among the rules under review are the local radio ownership rules, which regulate how many stations one company can own in a market. Also on the table are the agency's radio-TV cross ownership and cross-media ownership rules.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin last week released a proposal to eliminate the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban in the top 20 markets if certain conditions are met, with no changes to the radio ownership limit, the radio-TV cross-ownership rules, or the TV-duopoly rule, which are also under review.

That proposal was greeted with protests from Capitol Hill and FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, and the vote has been scheduled despite pleas from lawmakers to delay any rules changes until a separate localism proceeding has been completed -- and despite the introduction by Sen. Byron Dorgan of the Media Ownership Act of 2007, which would delay an FCC vote on new ownership rules until after it has held a new localism proceeding and considered the recommendations of a diversity task force.

0 Replies

Legislators oppose FCC cable plan
Legislators oppose FCC cable plan
Increased regulation would hurt consumers and innovation, a group of Republicans writes.
From Reuters
November 21, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A group of Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives raised objections Tuesday to a Federal Communications Commission proposal that could lead to tougher regulation of cable television operators.

A letter signed by 23 House Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee expressed serious doubts about the prospect of a regulatory crackdown on the cable industry, raised in a report that FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has circulated among the agency's other commissioners.

"Such actions are unsupported by the record of significant competition in the video programming marketplace, and would be harmful to innovation and consumers," the lawmakers wrote.

The prospect of further cable regulation is contained in the latest annual report on video competition.

The report finds U.S. cable subscription levels have exceeded 70% where service is available, passing a threshold that would give the agency more authority over companies such as Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc.

The study has met with resistance from Martin's fellow Republican FCC commissioners, Robert M. McDowell and Deborah Taylor Tate.

McDowell and Tate have raised doubts about how Martin arrived at the figure because it conflicts with findings in the same report in previous years.

McDowell said Monday that without further substantiation, he would not support the 70% finding in the video competition report.

The letter from House Republicans could make it more difficult for Martin to get the three votes that he needs to accept the report, one Capitol Hill source said.

The lawmakers' letter said Martin's proposed 70% finding was "suspect not only on legal grounds, but also on factual ones."

The Republican lawmakers also expressed opposition to any requirement that the industry adopt a system, supported by Martin, that would offer channels individually to customers on a so-called a la carte basis.

"Invasive program carriage obligations interfere with the ability of cable operators to package content," the Republican lawmakers said.

0 Replies

FCC Sets Media-Heavy Nov. 27 Public Meeting
FCC Sets Media-Heavy Nov. 27 Public Meeting
RELATED ARTICLES
Republican FCC Chairman Martin Needs Help from Democrats

NCTA: Multicast Must-Carry Is No Boon to Minorities
Agenda Includes Video-Competition Report, Media-Ownership Review (Minus Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership), Broadcaster Reporting Requirements

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/20/2007 4:43:00 PM
The Federal Communications Commission released the agenda for its Nov. 27 meeting, and it's loaded with media items.

As expected, chairman Kevin Martin scheduled a vote for a release of the video-competition report, which means that he either has the two Democratic commissioners lined up, since the Republicans expressed their concerns about an FCC finding that cable has met a deregulatory threshold, or he adjusted the item.

Republican commissioner Robert McDowell said Monday that he could vote to approve the report if the so-called 70/70 threshold part were deleted.

Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate also expressed reservations about the data the FCC used to come up with its conclusion, as has the cable industry en masse, which said its subscriber counts and household penetration have actually gone down with competition from satellite-TV providers and telephone companies.

Others -- Media Access Project, most notably -- said, as MAP said in a letter to the FCC Tuesday, that the 70/70 test has been met and that powerful cable operators have "squeezed out independent minority and religious programming."

The commission is also scheduled to vote on the media-ownership review that has been ongoing for years, but not the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership part, since the chairman is accepting comments on that proposal through Dec. 11 and is expected to vote on that Dec. 18 unless Congress applies sufficient pressure to delay that timetable.

While the agenda does not spell out specifics, the item is described as "concerning initiatives designed to increase participation in the broadcasting industry by new entrants and small businesses, including minority- and women-owned businesses."

That is likely the chairman's proposal to allow designated entities, including minorities, women, and small businesses, to lease digital broadcast spectrum from TV stations as a way to give them a broadcast "voice" without the entry costs of buying or building a station.

Minority advocates and Hill and FCC Democrats have been underwhelmed by the proposal, with some picking up on the phrase popularized by FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein that it is akin to spectrum "sharecropping." But Martin likely has two other Republican votes for the plan.

The chairman has also scheduled a vote on his proposal to increase broadcaster reporting requirements to include more detailed accounts of their public service.

Also on the agenda is an item to cut cable leased-access rights, perhaps by as much as 75%.

0 Replies

I don't see much TV Bernie apart from sport, wherein important lessons are on offer, so I haven't seen HoC.

I see bits of things and I have seen a bit of it. I find that seeing bits of a lot of things that I don't choose helps trends to stand out more clearly and saves me from my allowing myself to get into too narrow a mindset.

HoC isn't the sort of thing that appeals to my sense of humour. No doubt it is very good. It got some decent reviews if I remember. The class it is aimed at are not entirely my favourite organism on the planet.

I have to live up to my reputation after all.

I prefer movies about lost dvds on which some of the personal details of 25 million of us are stored. Not mine I might add. Some of us like to see real ministers squirming in real time rather than some acted out fantasy of urbanity, superciliousness and command.

And there's Northern Rock, our first sub-prime victim, running in tandem. Watching the Police spend billions of pounds in a long running saga of overtime and equipment purchases. The personalities of those who bring it all to us. Health jitters. Double dealing. Traffic news. Baking cakes. It's brilliant.

Attempting to draw a literary picture of the next five minutes in the news gathering and presentation business would take a rather long time. You would need a Proust.

It's a bit like a love of cricket. First you have to will yourself to watch it. Too many people love this game for me to dismiss it. So you watch it and the interrelationship between will and imagination, which de Sade is supposed to have discovered, is agitated. The will sets the imagination off and then the imagination takes over. Plenty of beer helps or possibly some other stimulent. Once you get the love of cricket you can sometimes wonder what it's like to be without it. It sort of grasses up (stool pigeon) men working at the top of whatever game they might be playing. Out in the open. 20 cameras. Nothing missed unless it's a girl running across the pitch and hurdling the stumps with no clothes on. They do avert their gaze, our gaze actually, on such occasions, presumably because they think we might be corrupted by seeing what would have been a common sight in the golden age of village cricket. Can you imagine that?

It takes will power to inhibit the will. Which is a bit of a conundrum really. But once the imagination has taken over it becomes habitual and the will drops out altogether. Sadism, freed from its popular usages, can be described as pleasure derived from the activity of the will. It can be constructive or destructive. In fact de Sade recommended the encouragement of constructive sadism in order defuse the destructive aspects.

Watch television Bernie-- not the programmes.

0 Replies

My brothers and I, and most of our friends, have been pretty seriously into an array of sports from childhood and up to now, or just short of now. Kayaking and skiing became my two great loves. A couple of months past, my twin and some old friends joined us for a weekend at the ocean and we all brought our baseball gear. As we were chucking a ball back and forth on the beach, a couple of the wives overheard some 30somethings declare, "Well, look at those elderly gentlemen playing. Isn't that the sweetest thing?" As to watching sports, don't do it very much. I came to detest hockey for the psychotic violence in it. World cup season is my real treat.

As to tv and film, artists, very good artists, find their way into any medium or art form that has compatriots and which might turn a dollar. I'm a fan of beauty and intelligence wherever it turns up. Compilations of award winning advertisements, for example.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The current dispite within the FCC is quite partison on both sides. No one argues that the current rules aren't anachronistic - they harken back to an era in which there was intense competition in most U.S. cities between multiple newspapers and a wide open field for investment in the then new TV industry. Both sides of this question have changed in profound ways, and the need for reform is now clear. The struggle however to define precisely how the reform will take place is intense and thoroughly partisan on both sides.

I agree.

0 Replies

Bernie-

You don't seem to understand.

You must still think you are a young man or something.

It's watching the foolish young men confounding the basic evolutionary principles which Cervantes delineated oh so long ago which is the interesting thing for educated men as mature and shagged out as wot me and you is.

Watching the ones in denial is even funnier. And watching their WAGS describe a shopping spree is juddering tackle.

Quote:

"Well, look at those elderly gentlemen playing. Isn't that the sweetest thing?"

A seller's market eh? That's super-sweet.

0 Replies

Watching a Polk County School Board composed as depicted on the website arguing for evolution to be taught is so laughable as to be beyond anyone's capacity to describe it for laughing.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
The current dispite within the FCC is quite partison on both sides. No one argues that the current rules aren't anachronistic - they harken back to an era in which there was intense competition in most U.S. cities between multiple newspapers and a wide open field for investment in the then new TV industry. Both sides of this question have changed in profound ways, and the need for reform is now clear. The struggle however to define precisely how the reform will take place is intense and thoroughly partisan on both sides.

I agree.

Well, yuppers, but how helpful or illuminating is it to note that there is change and that there is partisan disagreement regarding how now to procede?

George might make the claim that demands for deregulation are attributable to changes in the media environment. But demands for deregulation are ubiquitous across industries as a consequence of ideology. The fact of change is obvious, but demands for deregulation would be happening even if change weren't the case.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Well, yuppers, but how helpful or illuminating is it to note that there is change and that there is partisan disagreement regarding how now to procede?

Well, I suppose it's pretty illuminating to those who don't acknowledge or recognize the partisanship on their side of the debate.

blatham wrote:

George might make the claim that demands for deregulation are attributable to changes in the media environment. But demands for deregulation are ubiquitous across industries as a consequence of ideology. The fact of change is obvious, but demands for deregulation would be happening even if change weren't the case.

I don't think that was georgeob1's point, but even if it were, so what? Even if we are hearing the same arguments from the media tycoons today that we heard when deregulation may have, in fact, been a bad idea for precisely the reasons that you've stated, that doesn't mean that those arguments are flawed now. I certainly don't adhere to the notion of "once wrong, always wrong," and I'm not quite sure why you would.

Chicago has had cross-ownership for years, with the Tribune Company owning both the Tribune newspaper and WGN-TV and radio. In addition, for many years the same company that owned the Sun-Times owned WFLD-TV. Despite that cross-ownership, there was no dearth of competing viewpoints on either television or radio: there are over a dozen television stations in and around Chicago, and more than twice that number of radio stations. I have yet to see a convincing argument that the Tribune "monopoly" has had any negative effect on Chicago media.

Even in a small, one-newspaper city, cross-ownership would have very little influence on the media consumer. Rather, we should expect that the greatest impact would be felt by advertisers. Butte, Montana, for instance, has one daily newspaper, three television stations, and seven radio stations. Even if the newspaper cross-owned a tv station and a radio station, there would still be competing editorial voices, not just from local media but from national newspapers, cable and satellite television, magazines, and the internet. The average Butte citizen probably wouldn't even notice.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, I suppose it's pretty illuminating to those who don't acknowledge or recognize the partisanship on their side of the debate.

There's nothing necessarily wrong or incorrect arising from a partisan viewpoint. Perhaps you have another word/notion in mind? I suspect george does. Further, I suspect he could speak for a while on how the 'liberal partisan position' is extremist or unbalanced or terror-fraught or some such. And yet I also suspect he would have some trouble filling out the other side of the scale...what the 'conservative partisan postion' gets wrong.

And then there's those outlier bits to this 'partisan' argument, like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Trent Lott, Bill Saphire and others who are opposed to such deregulation.

You mention the case of the Tribune Company. You suggest that no notable problems have arisen in this case. Ought we to conclude that other cities must follow this example?

And let's lift it all up a notch. Is there any need for any regulation at all as regards media ownership?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There's nothing necessarily wrong or incorrect arising from a partisan viewpoint. Perhaps you have another word/notion in mind? I suspect george does. Further, I suspect he could speak for a while on how the 'liberal partisan position' is extremist or unbalanced or terror-fraught or some such. And yet I also suspect he would have some trouble filling out the other side of the scale...what the 'conservative partisan postion' gets wrong.

And then there's those outlier bits to this 'partisan' argument, like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Trent Lott, Bill Saphire and others who are opposed to such deregulation.

I'll let you and georgeob1 work that out among yourselves.

blatham wrote:

You mention the case of the Tribune Company. You suggest that no notable problems have arisen in this case. Ought we to conclude that other cities must follow this example?

Must follow that example? I don't think I'd force cities to have cross-ownership, but I don't see why it's so objectionable.

blatham wrote:

And let's lift it all up a notch. Is there any need for any regulation at all as regards media ownership?

I'd be happy with the application of the same antitrust rules applied to media conglomerates that are currently applicable to all other industries.

0 Replies

While further posts from me may be pointless, given that Blatham has already described what George would say on this matter, let me briefly outline my basic thoughts.

Federal regulation of private actions is justifiable in certain circumstances to prevent grevious harm or injury to individuals or groups of people. In addition in certain circumstances preventive Federal regulation is justified to protect the public good in preventing gross distortion of markets or other processes on which the public depends and for which no other means are available. (Here the Securities & Exchange Commission is a good example).

In general government regulation is recognized by our constitution as a generally undesirable thing, allowable only under certain circumstances and in support only of specifically named powers of government. It is explicitly excluded in numerous areas of life (notably including freedom of speech) as part of that same constitution. This is of course based on the principle that government processes too readily lend themselves to abuse through corruption, usurpation and the persistent venality of human nature when the power of government is in its hands.

The so-called fairness doctrine in broadcast communications was a direct result of the now obselete practical necessity of a government monopoly on access to instant mass communications, then available only through the broadcast frequency spectrum -- in past years with this the only instant means of wide area communication, chaos would surely result without such government control of access. Once government became the gate keeper, it became necessary to ensure that this power was exercised with impartiality and fairness. The fairness doctrine was initiated chiefly as a limitation on the government's actions in licensing broadcasters and preventing it from intentionally or merely inadvertantly allowing existing printy and other media entities from dominating the broadcast spectrum merely by virtue of their presence in the market.

Now, in an age of vastly improved signal density in the broadcast spectrum and of ubiquitous cable and internet networks that don't use the broadcast spectrum at all, the situation is entirely different. There is no longer a local shortage of broadcast spectral access, and equally effective alternate means of instantly accessing the same audience through the internet and cable networks that are quite beyond this regulatory regime are readily available to all. The justification for the regulatory regime and the attendant evils it permits, including particularly the inherent limitation of the freedom of speech it entails, no longer exists.

These are the arguments that were correctly used some years ago to eliminate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" limiting public speech on the airways. Note that the issue before us now is the elimination of other equally obsolete and no longer justifiable government restrictions on the free enterprise of media companies and their owners. Given the fact that these rules apply only to a small part of mass media - those using the broadcast spectrum - the absurdity of the "fairness" arguments being offered in support of the return of these now obsolete, no longer justifiable restrictions on freedom of speech is obvious for all to see.

All of this leads the discerning observer to look deeper for the real motives behind this issue.

We have all seen Blatham's bland acceptance of the Turner Broadcasting empire or those of the Washington Post Co. or even the New York Times -- and the stark contrast with his fear of evil conspiracy behind the otherwise similar empire headed by Rupert Murdoch. I hesitate to suggest that the persistent success of Rush Limbach and lesser lights like Michael Savage in attracting and retaining a wide audience on radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, the Sinclair network and others may be behind this rather obvious attempt to silence a political voice he happens to dislike. However the evidence in this case is rather clear. This is an attempt to misuse the power of government to suppress the political speech of voices they oppose. It is all done with high-sounding rhetoric and vague appeals to virtue, but the motives and the goals are hardly different from those of the brownshirts who proceded them in this kind of forced suppression of disagreement.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

No such danger, IMO. Thou protesteth too much. Blatham concerns himself with myriad issues. Maybe its that you just don't like hearing about this one.

Oh yeah, that must be it. Cool

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Good Grief blatham, you are in danger of being assigned the official status of One Trick Pony.

Surely there is more to concern your formidable intellect with other than which ideological power controls the airwaves.

As my old friend snood suggests, even a cursory examination would reveal that my neuroses manifest themselves in splendorous array.

I love when you Lefties come to each other's rescue. I guess it takes a village to respond to a conservative, or better yet, my salvos require calling in reinforcements.

But this one sits up near the top. If one holds, as I do, that the 'enemy' is not either or any party but rather the ease with which communities can organize themselves under authoritarian control, then one tries to understand the mechanisms by which this may be (and has been) achieved.

Makes sense except that you delude yourself if you truly assert that you do not see the Republican Party as the 'enemy.' As a reader of most of your posts, I assure you that with a little time and effort I can find enough blatham quotes on A2K to prove otherwise.

Information control is essential to the authoritarian enterprise. Authoritarian regimes always demand it and they cannot continue when they do not manage to control information.

I agree completely, however I'm afraid that your vision is myopic. You continuously display the sense that authoritarianism can only equal The Right.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

And let's lift it all up a notch.

Why not?

What about media being dependent on advertisers and advertisers want eyeballs and to get that the stuff between the ads has to be "popular" and attractive to a predominantly female audience.

You get dumbed down and prettied up at the same time only en-masse. Which is why you shout your machismo from the rooftops.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:

You mention the case of the Tribune Company. You suggest that no notable problems have arisen in this case. Ought we to conclude that other cities must follow this example?

joe

Quote:

Must follow that example? I don't think I'd force cities to have cross-ownership, but I don't see why it's so objectionable.

Sorry. I meant 'must' in the logical sense. We can't make the jump to all cases will work the same as a that which we see in a single example.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

And let's lift it all up a notch. Is there any need for any regulation at all as regards media ownership?

joe

Quote:

I'd be happy with the application of the same antitrust rules applied to media conglomerates that are currently applicable to all other industries.

I wouldn't be happy with that, I don't think, because of the exceptional nature of the commodity. Are existing anti-trust laws written formulaicly (enter industry name here______) or are they constructed variously, to account for differences of various sorts?

0 Replies

finn

Quote:

Makes sense except that you delude yourself if you truly assert that you do not see the Republican Party as the 'enemy.' As a reader of most of your posts, I assure you that with a little time and effort I can find enough blatham quotes on A2K to prove otherwise.

I have some trouble being convinced when someone else claims they have a better grasp of my thoughts than I. Call me old fashioned.

Quote:

blatham; Information control is essential to the authoritarian enterprise. Authoritarian regimes always demand it and they cannot continue when they do not manage to control information.

finn; I agree completely, however I'm afraid that your vision is myopic. You continuously display the sense that authoritarianism can only equal The Right.

It's not a left/right matter, in the normal or cliched sense of those worlds. There was Pravda in the USSR, and China will have its main information organs (I don't know what they are) which function in precisely the same manner. And that function will not differ in any rightwing dictatorship you might point to.

0 Replies

george said

Quote:

All of this leads the discerning observer to look deeper for the real motives behind this issue.

We have all seen Blatham's bland acceptance of the Turner Broadcasting empire or those of the Washington Post Co. or even the New York Times -- and the stark contrast with his fear of evil conspiracy behind the otherwise similar empire headed by Rupert Murdoch. I hesitate to suggest that the persistent success of Rush Limbach and lesser lights like Michael Savage in attracting and retaining a wide audience on radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, the Sinclair network and others may be behind this rather obvious attempt to silence a political voice he happens to dislike. However the evidence in this case is rather clear. This is an attempt to misuse the power of government to suppress the political speech of voices they oppose. It is all done with high-sounding rhetoric and vague appeals to virtue, but the motives and the goals are hardly different from those of the brownshirts who proceded them in this kind of forced suppression of disagreement.

george
I prefer talking with you when you aren't being quite so obtuse. Sure, it doesn't happen often lately but they are nice moments none the less. I understand that electoral fears haunt your sleep, thus I forgive.

So, you would conclude then that Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Trent Lott, and Bill Safire, "in this rather obvious attempt to silence a political voice they happen to dislike... attempt to misuse the power of government to suppress the political speech of voices they oppose"?

Do I have your reasoning correct here?

0 Replies

FCC Republicans again attempt to weaken media ownership rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know