Slashdot Mirror
The FCC and Media Consolidation
An anonymous reader writes "A story on this evening's All Things Considered but also at Now with Bill Moyers reports this June, the FCC will choose whether to keep or drop longstanding rules limiting the number of media outlets (radio stations, TV stations, etc.) a company may hold in a single area. That means all the radio stations in your area, for example, may one day be controlled by one company, like Clearchannel or Rupert Murdoch's FOX Communications. One irony is virtually no news outlet is covering the story. Another is the justifying argument for this move comes from the emergence of new media, like the Internet and Cable/Satellite. Yet with all 100's of new TV channels available, there are only five major media companies out there controlling them all, and recent copyright rules applying to the Internet have all but squelched-out Internet radio. So the old rules might not be so outdated after all. But the only voices being heard in this argument are coming from the media giants." In a related story, AOL/Time-Warner is petitioning the FCC to lift the restriction forbidding AOL from launching "advanced" IM services without letting others access the IM network.
is there a public comment that anyone knows about?
That broadcast media is different? They've allocated a limited number of airwave slots, airwaves that belong to the people, and so the government does have a stake in protecting their use. Own all the cable stations you want, own all the websites you want, but you shouldn't be able to lease all of our resource. You should be able to use one at a time in a market per type (ie 1 FM, 1 AM and 1 TV max).
All the FCC rules for divying up the airwaves is based on the notion that bandwidth is a very scarce resource, and ultimately owned by the public. This "extreme scarcity" however is changing.
Once television stations are transmitted digitially, there will be far, far more bandwidth available. There will no longer be these so-called "natural monopolies" in each locality, encouraging government regulation of the resource.
When we go digital, there is no longer even any half-justifiable reason for restricting who gets what. There is plenty more to be gotten, and far more oportunity for competition.
Moreover, freedom of speech does not require restrictions placed on the private sphere -- just the opposite. If anything, government restricting who is allowed to run a media outlet in a free market is an attack on the first amendment.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
This article brings up some important points that need to be addressed about government regulation of media. Nobody wants a consolidation of media so that one company ends up controlling all the media in a given area. This would be similar to if K-Mart bought up every retail store in a metropolitan area.
There is a distinct difference between the retail environment and the media environment. If government decided to limit the number of grocery stores in a given area with a new agency called the GCC (Grocery Control Commission) there would be obvious problems. Corporations with the most money would immediately suck up all of the licenses and every mom & pop store would immediately go out of business.
The way things stand now, city councils have some regulatory power over rezoning but for the most part there are no limits on the number of grocery stores in a given area. The market sets the price. Unfortunately, due to the huge amount of regulations by the FCC the radio and televison stations are limited by something that the government calls bandwidth.
The effect is that the barrier to entry to start your own radio station, television channel, etc. is very high due to licensing costs and bandwidth "availability". Thus we really don't have anything resembling a free market in the area of media. As long as the government controls the licenses, the people will not have a voice. I have heard arguments recently on slashdot that there is no such thing as a bandwidth problem. This begs the question exactly what is the government doing limiting the number of radio or television stations in a given area?
I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem with the FCC and giant media companies buying up stations around the country. One thing is clear, though: The present situation is nowhere near capitalism, nor the fault of the free market.
In Los Angles, Viacom owns channels 2 (CBS) and 13 (UPN), Disney owns 7 (ABC) and 9 (KCAL), and the Chicago Tribune owns both channel 5 (KTLA) and the only daily newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. Here in Worcester, MA, both channels 7 and 10 are NBC, 4 (CBS) and 38 (UPN) are both Viacom (and actually share the same nightly news), 2 and 44 are owned by the same PBS affiliate (WGBH), and 98 is also owned by PBS. So what exactly would change here?
Long, long ago (early 1910's to be exact) the US parcelled out its radio frequencies. They were/are supposed to be resources dedicated to the benefit of us all, like our national parks.
Of course that ideal has eroded considerably over the years. The commercial US media has proven time and time again that it can't be relied upon for substantial news or even decent entertainment content. To all my laissez faire friends, look no further than Clear Channel to see how this actually hurts the market...
After the FCC relaxed ownership regulations, the radio industry is actually smaller, less jobs are available, and musicians' barriers to radio play are higher than ever.
PBS and NPR are merely bones thrown out to the public, a meaningless gesture. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has no more interest in providing decent news than FOX or CNN-look no further than the 2000 Presidential debates, where Jim Lehrer supported the blocking of third-party candidates from the discussion for proof.
So what needs to happen? A lot of people have noted that the amount of spectrum available through digital 'modulation' makes it possible to broadcast an almost unlimited number of radio channels...and this technique could be applied to television as well, to a lesser extent. With limited spectrum a thing of the past, public and commercial interests can share the media, each supporting the other. Here's what I'd like to see happen:
1)Corporation for Public Broadcasting/PBS/NPR dismantled. Public funding allocated for those organizations should be used to build a strong public access infrastructure. This new public access project awards grants to budding television producers. This public access network could also serve as a 'farm league' for larger commercial interests. Successful public-access producers could be picked up by the larger networks-allowing risk-free, cost-free market research for Big Media. Everybody wins!
2)FCC laws limiting media ownership strengthened. Let's limit how many media outlets, and what kind of outlets each corporation can own. Media outlets should be required to report their owners, as well as what other media outlets are owned by their owners, on "public service announcements" several times per day. You'd be surprised at how many people don't know that AOL owns CNN, Time Magazine, many local cable companies, etc.
3)Classrooms teach semiotics/media literacy. Knowing how to dissect and critique popular media is very important for a free-thinking society. As (somebody? Gramsci?) said, "The power of ideology is that it presents itself as normal." People need to know that 'objective' news is impossible, and how to spot astroturfing, shilling, and other forms of deception.
So...that's my long-winded take on how to 'fix the media'. Appoint me as FCC chairman in 2004!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
"Correction: Cheney's former Company. He left the company before he became vice president. " Hmmmmm. I seem to remeber an article in Newsweek that said something along the lines that Cheney is still receiving $400,000 yearly from Haliburton, but it's all deferred into charity until after 2008. Hmmmm. Not the same thing as not having a conflict of interest.
CAPS LOCK: ITS LIKE THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME
You use your experience contracting for a syndicated show to imply that you understand how program management and music directing work. It is clear from your exxageration of the "Ooh Microsoft Radio Company" that you do not have first hand experience in these areas.
(And re, 'On the House', of course they would drop your "indie" show for their own stable of programming, it's called saving costs. Buying internally == cheaper. If enough of the audience wanted 'On the House', it would find another affiliate, and still be on the air in that market).
AC -- cause I actually work for "them".
There's no reason to believe they're about to "fail".
The reason I said that they are failing is that if you look at their Balance Sheet they are negative 6 Billion Dollar's in Retained Earnings. The rule is that you cannot pay out any dividends UNTIL R/E are positive and for no more than they have R/E. Now the income that they are generating every year is 200 million. Assuming that everything else is constant it would take 30 years before any stock holders would see a dime!
Take the fact that they cannot pay out money to investor's and that it is getting easier to open your own radio station(not REAL easy, but viable). There is little reason to believe that Clear Channel can be a dominate company. A good example, take a look at the railroads. AmTrak has to go and beg for money from congress every year just to stay afloat and they are not making any money. I doubt that the media business would get the sam subsidies that a fixed asset company like AmTrak would.
So basically, yeah CC is buying up everything but they are taking up alot of loans to do it, and it does not look realistic for investors that they are going to get their return on their money back in their life time. Even a bond would pay more than CC would. So CC buys everything, but cannot make any money. Goes broke, has to sell off it's assets on the cheap, and noone can afford to buy it all. Free market wins again! I hope! :)