FCC to Permit Complete Media/Telecom Consolidation

rhwalker22 writes "Today's Washington Post has a piece reviewing some of the major decisions the Federal Communications Commission will be making in the next few months, moves that could fundamentally rewrite the rules for the broadcast media and Internet service providers. Excerpt: 'Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.'"

Comments

huh?

[TCaptain]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

And how this is different from today?

Re:huh?

[Britissippi]

Ain't that the truth! With Clearchannel controlling every other radio station, AT&T Controlling almost all the phones and broadband access....

Not to mention the TV stations all being administered by a sinister few....

Re:huh?

[avi33]

I got news for you, these *are* the good times.

Imagine if Sony, your ISP/cable company, decides that you, as a consumer, really only need port 80. Their TOS allows them to monitor your computer for p2p apps, and while you're free to 'license' (listen to once, without recording) sony music and video for a small fee, any non-sony media will be subject to a bandwidth cap...so if you listen to non-sony internet radio, you hit your cap 4 days into the month. ...or, you could always try your hand with the other ISP, MicroDisneySoft.

Re:huh?

[WPIDalamar]

Now the RIAA could buy the music stores, and only offer their music, instead of the RIAA just pressuring the music stores with price breaks.

Re:huh?

[GrenDel Fuego]

Right now we have companies that practially (or actually) have monopolies in various industries.

With this change, you will have your Microsoft TV Channel, Microsoft radio station, Microsoft Newspaper, Microsoft Internet access, Microsoft Movies. (Or insert your other favorite Conglomerate. ATT or Disney perhaps?)

Then again, we've got MSN and MSNBC already, so we're pretty close already.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

I guess us libertarian geeks will just have to set up our own channels of communications.

The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place.

Re:huh?

[TrekCycling]

That's what I was thinking. We must stop media consolidation before it gets out of control!! Now leave me alone so I can go back to watching the Daily Show on Comedy Central, which is owned by Time Warner, which owns the #1 ISP in the world along with major film studios, indie film studios like Mirimax, around 20 cable TV channels and.......

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how it is, though, that when you get down to brass tacks with a libertarian, you can never actually get them to admit to a concrete example of a corporation doing wrong, because they always fall back on their circular logic that the market will "punish" bad corporations, rather than admit that corporations acting badly is what the market is really all about.

Re:huh?

[Qrlx]

the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies.

You mean like the way the market punished Enron?

Oh, okay, Enron is out of business. But none of the execs are in jail. Looks like the free market only punished the worker bees at Enron, and all it cost was doubling the electicity rates of everyone on the west coast. Enron screwed the West Coast, and their punishment is that the poor slobs who were "only following orders" at Enron are out of a job, while the "evildoers" walk.

The incredible amounts of money that our regulated and semi-regulated industries deal in are far too tempting for private companies to not exploit, cook the books, what have you. Airlines, utilities, and rail travel all need to be run by the government (at least in large part.)

Look at RailTrack in the U.K. That worked well. Not.

While there is much less motivation to spend wealth wisely among politicians than among CEOs there is also much less incentive (or even possibility) to grant yourself huge stock options, bonuses, and multiple golden parachutes and escape clauses at the expense of your customers.

How can the "market" know who to punish when the CFOs at Enron and WorldCom are lying in their SEC filings? The market only finds out well after the crime has been committed, and hence it will always be reactive. What we need is a more proactive approach so we're not always cleaning up the next big corporate mess.

And how do you deal with the fact that private corporations will deliberately break the law, knowing that the fine is less than the cost of, say, disposing of hazardous waste properly? A public enterprise does not have the luxury of performing a cost-benefit analysis of doing something illegal. By contrast, a corporation is practically COMPELLED to consider illegal behavior if it represents an attractive value proposition to its shareholders.

In Some Regulatory environments

[TimeReliesOnLadyLuck]

The companies regulate the FCC! They call it "regulatory capture" Now that Colin Powell's son is FCC director, every CEO worth his grits knows it's as easy as 1. Send money to Republicans, 2, (wink wink), and 3. Profit from regulation you write yourself! Just another blank check from the liberals in the Republican party.

Re:In Some Regulatory environments

[The Wicked Priest]

He certainly is not, though he was a Clinton appointee. (Clinton is no liberal, either.) Bush Jr. made him chairman. I refer you to his official biography:

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biog ra phy.html

("Mr. Powell, a Republican"). He's SofS Colin Powell's son, by the way. He's probably what passes for a "moderate" these days, which is to say, a hard right-winger.

I take it you're one of those libertarian-minded folks who's under the delusion that the Republican party is libertarian.

This is already happening...

[MImeKillEr]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

This is already happening with Radio. Proof? Two words: Clear Channel.

Do you have a KISS-FM in your town? That's Clear Channel. They're putting cookie-cutter pop radio stations (all called KISS-FM) in major markets. In addition to owning KISS-FM in nearly every market, they own TV stations, billboards, concert venues, etc.

Check out this link.
Click here and search for 'kiss' -- you'll find 51 stations, all the same format, all the same manufactured pop stars, all the same type of dopey deejays.

Its radio like this that keeps me listening to CDs.

Re:This is already happening...

[akb]

Clearchannel is "just" radio and billboards, they own ~1300 radio stations. And all this has happened since 1996! Before that 20 stations was the national limit. I think the change has been very dramatic, the quality of radio programming has gone done so much everywhere nationally I don't even really bother looking for good radio.

The FCC thinks all this has been good and wants to extend this model to all other media that it regulates!

We'll all work for...

[sdo1]

... The Company.

What was a sci-fi fantasy/warning is quickly becoming a reality. In the future there will be one corporate entity indistinguishible from and intertwined with the government.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

-S

Obvious

[Qrlx]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information

Shouldn't that be fewer powerful conglomerates?

Deregulation of the telecom industry has brought us the lowest rates ever! Of course, we're paying fees, taxes, tariffs, surcharges, adjustments, and recoupments that didn't even exist before, but look -- deregulation must work because rates are lower.

The situation with deregulation in this country has put the foxes in charge of hen house.

For my opinion of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, read my other post.

TV companies to go the M$ way?

[p944]

[clip], set restrictions on how many TV and radio stations can be owned by one company, and determine whether a company can own both newspapers and TV stations that serve the same community.

I guess if they let any TV network own as many channels as they want, then they too can use M$s "embrace and destroy" method of market domination by just buying all the small competition.

Not convinced about the idea that this won't stop new entrants into the market place and any that do appear will get rapidly snapped up by one of the big 3 to be.

That prospect has Amazon, Microsoft Corp. and a coalition of other technology companies worried that those gatekeepers could prevent users from looking at certain content

How many consumers would seriously put up with internet content being blocked if it's not the suppliers companies content?

Maybe certain ISPs would be born that are basically a new version of TV channels - only their content but provided for a lower price...

in the IT world

[ideonode]

In most companies I've worked with, communications and media are bundled in the same vertical anyway - typically something like ICE (Information-Communication-Entertainment) or similar. From a purely technical standing, I don't think it makes much difference.

From a socio-political position, however, it further blurs the distinction between medium and message. Damn that McLuhan - he was smart!

Re:Unification

[swb]

Who needs banks? Since you'll work for them, they'll just keep an account for you at the company store, which will be always just slightly negative in balance.

Re:this is a good thing

[broody]

So what your saying is so what if a handful of corporations gain even more control over the media as long as we get cheap DSL?

Didn't I read about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

in Snow Crash

and

Neuromancer
??
oh, wait, sorry.

Those are works of FICTION.

Silly me.

"does Life imitate art, or does art imitate life? Life Imitates bad art."

Re:Unification

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the giant conglomerate already exists, check this.

General Electric -> NBC -> MSNBC -> MS -> duh

You may not realize it but General Electric is at the center of a very large and powerful conglomerate already. The fact that they own NBC is just one example. They own a whole lot of other stuff I just can't think of off hand.

Michael Powell runs the FCC (+1 Truth)

[TimeReliesOnLadyLuck]

Michael Powell is Colin Powell's son, and he is known as "friendly to industry" - meaning that your media corp can get whatever it wants from the FCC, for the right amount of campaign contributions.

Re:Define Irony

[(trb001)]

Irony is the wrong word...hypocrisy is the one you're looking for.

--trb

Re:this is a good thing

[WPIDalamar]

Or... since you'll be a monopoly, you'll jack up the price nice and high.

Or maybe that $10/month will only last until a majority of people have signed up, then the price will go way up.

here comes the dictatorship

[elmegil]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

Which is of course what you would want if you were trying to subvert democracy and freedom...a task some members of the current administration have already made great inroads on.

Re:here comes the dictatorship

[Alyeska]

This is perfect. The Government can't legally supress free speech. So instead, they deregulate until all the media is in the hands of a few, and the speech is then quelled by censors/moderators and EULAs. Later, they'll make large investments in unneccessary technology that will be legally required before you can provide ISP service -- so what used to cost a few thousand to start, now would take hundreds of millions -- thus leaving everyone priced out of the game.

It's beautiful. The privatization of suppression.

Don't need no stinkin competition

[Tisha_AH]

Sounds groovy, Buy your computers from IBM Buy your operating system from Microsoft Buy your telecom/ internet from BellSouth ------------ I have had to deal with all three and they suck equally as well. (BTW, I work for a CLEC so I have firsthand experience dealing with an incumbent (incompetent(BellSouth)) phone company with ego's the size of Montana) ------------ DSL is so damned expensive and unavailable rurally because of the baby bell's arcane, antiquated systems that they don't want to upgrade. They just hope that the competition (CLEC's) go away so they can continue to sell you shitty service through the rest of the 21st century. ------------ Take a look at the tarrif pricing on a DS1 or a DS3! Talk about dis-incentive for anyone expect for a fortune 500 to buy. The RBOC's hate bundled (data and voice)services, they hate UNE-P's, they hate their customers. Just send them the money and shut your mouth.

1930's, part deux

[kraksmoka]

"That assumes that the antitrust division takes a pill and goes to sleep," said Powell, who once worked in that Justice Department division

HELOOOOO! it is asleep already! two letters M$

in the 30's the fcc shifted from a public interest view of it's job to a pro-business view. as a result, enourmous barriers to entry were constructed in TV and Radio.

fact is, the system in place favors the regional phone companies too much already. its nearly impossible to switch DSL providers without a massive downtime and loss of productivity. cable is only as good as the local monopoly that provides it (if its like here with AT&T, not even worth the hassle of dealing with those incompetents), and many cable co.s are providing downstream only links to prevent sharing, with a dial in modem for up, awful. i thought broadband's big advantage was that you don't need a second telephone line.

fact is, the only way to break the hegemony of the regionals is for someone to step in and require that the infrastructure is separated entirely from the sales and marketing, and make baby bells that once again become public utilities instead of sanctioned monopolies.

Sorry, can't back you up.

[wiredog]

I grew up listening to DC101 in the 70's and 80's. DC101 sucks today. When was the last time they played a local act?

Admittedly, not as bas as WHFS, which used to be an alternative station, but only barely not as bad.

Re:Unification

[LostCluster]

If The Company is publically traded, you can buy shares and their for profit from the fact you and everyone around you is being ripped of.

Have you noticed that most of the truely evil companies have large shareholders, but not a true majority owners? Yep, we're ripping ourselves off so we can fund our own retirement in our 401k.

Competition is dying already :(

[Ded Bob]

As an ex-DirecTV DSL customer, I am seeing it disappear as we speak. The only provider in my area is now SBC. Whether or not the FCC does anything, I see competition as being dead.

BTW, I would love the FCC to get rid of one regulation: the idiotic regulation that requires me to cancel DSL service before I can get another provider to even take an order. The same group comes out to disconnect me as will connect me five days later. I want to see down-times of hours not days nor weeks (if unlucky). How can people try out different competitors easily if they will have to wait so long?

Re:Define Irony

[LostCluster]

They own a network, but ABC does not own very many TV stations.

Therfore, they are depending on companies such as Hearst-Argile to make the last-mile link between the network programming and the viewers. If Hearst-Argile were ever to decide to create its own network using its stations to start it, ABC would suddenly be off the air in several major cities, and in the crouded TV field would have a hard time finding replacement affiliates without taking a major downgrade.

Likewise, The Disney Channel, ESPN, and ABC Family are cable networks... but Disney doesn't have a cable system with which to make the last-mile link. If cable companies decided to walk away from Disney, those cable networks would suddenly be devalued with no way to reach end viewers.

Owning content is worthless if you have no way to sell it to somebody.

Sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day it just gets worse. What made the US a great country were freedom, liberty, etc. Profitability was not the primary consideration ( although it was an outcome ). It seems the US has confused the the cause with the outcome and is perfectly willing to sacrifice the premises which led to its greatness. WTF?

I think one of the problems is that the US extends the freedoms of man to corporations. Treating a company like an individual is convenient until you realise that companies don't die - they have no natural limitations.

What can be done?

Re:One Station to Rule them all

[Anonymous Cow herd]

Why not? It worked for McD's, Starbucks, and just about every franchise chain out there... people don't care if big corporations give them shitty quality stuff, as long as it's the same shitty quality stuff wherever you go.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:canada shows US the way

[fizban]

God damn it! This puts me over the edge. I've been meaning to join our northerly brethren for a while now and I think this just about gives me the final reason to make my promise good. Onward Kanooks! Eh?

Unregulated Capitalism is the EVIL of the world.

Big media - the big tobacco of tomorrow

[jessedl]

A lot has been written about the potential for a technological riff between the 'haves' and 'have nots'. I believe instead this riff will divide the media-addicts and those strong enough to overcome or avoid media-addiction.

The interesting thing about those who read and write to slashdot regarding this story is their tension between media-craving and media-disgust. The majority of respondents, by virtue of reading the site itself, are in some way addicted to news and information. Notably they are loathe to hear of corporate conglomerates taking control, despite the fact that they likely pay $50+ monthly cable bills to these very corporations.

Media companies have exclusively the interest of their consumers in mind whenever they do anything. This is economic law. They give the masses - and we're all part of the masses despite whatever intellectual tricks we use to convince ourselves otherwise - what the masses demand. Substitution of one sub-media for another ("underground" music instead of "popular" music) does not free yourself, ultimately the happy-go-lucky Media Inc. will figure out your shifting preferences and deliver it to you in any form you're willing to pay for. And you WILL be willing to pay for it.

Re:Example of a media company controlling a countr

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to describe the power of such corporations although the US is beginning to have a glimpse of what happens when media becomes a tycoon controlled business.

They US media has been a tycoon controlled business since Hearst and Pulitzer strung newspapers throughout metropolitan areas across the country, then started news services to feed stories from the big cities to small town papers.

Later, wealthy electronics magnate David Sarnoff started NBC, then wealthy cigar magnate William Paley bought the ailing CBS; between the two you couldn't go up and down the radio dial without finding 50 stations in 30 cities all playing the same thing at the same time.

Information in the USA has been under the influence of money since before any of us were born.