Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress May Overturn FCC's Media Consolidation Plan

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the giving-things-a-second-look dept.

Spril writes "A congressional committee voted yesterday to prevent the FCC from allowing even more consolidation of the media industry. The original ruling was covered on Slashdot. The committee attached the pro-consumer proposal to a bill funding the Justice and State departments for 2004. But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public. Clear Channel may need to cough up some more money for their lobbyists."

15 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. On this day, July 17th, 2003... by chrisgeleven · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the United States of America Congress for approx. 1.257631919191918 seconds sided with consumers.

    1. Re:On this day, July 17th, 2003... by andrew_mike · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...the United States of America Congress for approx. 1.257631919191918 seconds sided with consumers.

      Yes, but, to the androids in Congress, that is an eternity.

      --
      Being a smartass is a much better thing than being the alternative.
  2. Attached to the bill by perimorph · · Score: 5, Funny

    The committee attached the pro-consumer proposal to a bill funding the Justice and State departments for 2004.

    Finally, an attachment that might be safe to open!! *Proceeds to double-click in Outlook*

  3. I'm waiting for the day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...when we need clearchannel licenses to operate radios. Similar to the UK's radio/tv tax, only done by the one company that rightfully controls the entire radio band and has the right to tax it. In socialism, the government takes away freedoms. In democracy, companies take away freedoms. In a mix (the US), companies take away freedoms with government mandate.

  4. Don't get too happy. by kid+zeus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunately, this challenge only applies to the increase in percentage of TV broadcast ownership. The change allowing cross-media ownership (so that ClearChannel, for example, can now own several radio stations plus TV stations plus newspapers) will not be challenged. Congressmen (mostly Republics, surprise, surprise) threatened to kill the entire bill if any changes in the cross-media section were pushed.

    Still, better than nothing I suppose. If this passes, Fox will have to go ahead and divest itself of the excess Television coverage they picked up that put them in violation of the cap.

  5. Call me cynical, but... by Paladin144 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is this congressional subcommittee merely playing populist politics because the veto is pretty much a foregone conclusion? I find it hard to believe these clowns are actually going to stand up to big business.

    Then again, I might just be a cynic at the ripe old age of 25.

    --
    Electric Monkey Pants
  6. ahhhh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public"

    Now I remember why I read slashdot, for the non-biased even-handed reporting. Now when are we going to see a mention of Fritz Hollings' membership in the democratic party?

  7. In the public interest by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ralph Nader made some interesting observations about the proposed changes.

  8. Re:What the fuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i'm pretty evenly split on dem/rep issues.

    a few issues on both sides that i agree with, with a lot of issues "undecided/don't know"

    what i do know is the republicans push the idea of "smaller government"

    this is appealing in a way. i don't want a large overbearing government fucking with my life.

    but i think many pure unquestioning republicans don't understand is, I DON'T WANT LARGE OVERBEARING CORPORATIONS fucking with me either.

    the end result is the same. I, an individual, am made irrelevant.

    THAT is why i have so little faith....in either party.

  9. Consumers? Oh Christ I thought we were Citizens by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Silly me.

    --
    This is my sig.
  10. Quote from pro-FCC House member by Lelon · · Score: 5, Informative
    I read about this in the basement of the university radio station I DJ at. We're all watching very closely. Here is a quote from Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who supports the changed media rules.
    "We have no intentions of taking up that bill," Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson said. "This has become a political soap opera, and given the chance Chairman Tauzin intends to cancel its run."
    I'll admit I'm not an expert on House Committee rules, but this is a serious obstacle for this bill.

    What has really peaked my interest is that this bill not only seeks to undo the most recent FCC decision, but seeks to undo the radio deregulation of 1996, which has been great for ClearChannel but a disaster for the music industry. In my opinion it is directly responsible for the lack of quality most people see in today's music industry (and therfore the primary reason for the music industrys economic slump).
    Another amendment involving radio passed 12-11 and would expand the FCC's new, stricter radio ownership rules so they apply to stations a company already owns. If enacted, the change could force companies like Clear Channel, the country's largest radio chain with 1,200 stations, to sell stations in markets where they exceed ownership limits.

    "This is an attempt to single out one company for being successful and punish them for playing by the rules," said Andy Levin, a Clear Channel vice president. He predicted the measure will be defeated later.


  11. Re:I've pretty much ... by Nic-o-demus · · Score: 5, Informative
    William Safire, a columnist for the NYT, wrote an insightful editorial concerning congress' actions.
    Some quotes:
    But to everyone's amazement, the networks' power play was foiled. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia urged his G.O.P. colleagues to vote their consciences, and an amendment to hold the cap on a huge conglomerate's ownership to 35 percent of the national TV audience was passed by a vote of 40 to 25.
    ...
    According to this week's Pew Research poll about the F.C.C. plan (to break the ownership barrier and permit media crossover), "By roughly 10 to one (70%-6%), those who have heard a lot about the rules change say its impact will be negative." Nearly half of those polled had heard about this issue, despite conflicted media coverage.

    This growing grass-roots grumbling against giantism is getting through to legislators ordinarily cowed by network-owned station managers or wowed by big-media campaign contributions. Unfortunately, the any-merger-goes F.C.C. chairman, Michael Powell, has derided objections to his diktat as "garbage," and the White House strategist Karl Rove dismisses the depth of voter resentment that Democrats will be able to exploit next year.
    In conclusion, Safire seems to think (and he's usually keen on such things from what I can tell) that this might turn into an election issue. Let's make sure it does.
    Eco-cons as well as libertarians may snicker, but Republican Representative Richard Burr of North Carolina observed that 26 independent NBC affiliates had recently exercised their right to refuse to telecast "Maxim's Hot 100." If independents are gobbled up with the F.C.C.'s blessing, more decisions affecting local mores will be made in Rockefeller Center. Is that what George Bush stands for?

    ...public opinion is on the march. Some in-house pollster should awaken President Bush to a bipartisan sleeper issue that could blindside him next year.
  12. Re:That is not it, it is fundraising. by ADOT+Troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yesterday afternoon as I was driving home from the office, I heard Trent Lott talking about the proposed FCC rule on Public Radio Mississippi. Basically, he said he opposed the new rules because it would reduce the diversity of opinion in the media. It sounded almost exactly like a PIRC form letter.

    Needless to say, I was a bit amazed (omg wtf lol!). But regardless of what you (or I) think of him, Trent Lott is a seasoned politician. And the only way to become one of those is to listen to constituents.

    Maybe he's still atoning for that Strom Thurmond thing...

  13. Own Your Own Station by ssafarik · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You can buy your own microradio FM transmitter from http://www.nrgkits.com for well under $200, and be on the air quickly. Play your favorite stream, your list of mp3's, be a local repeater for Al Jazeera, or whatever you please. The spectrum is owned by the public afterall.

    The FCC doesn't like it, but you can probably expect to be on the air at a couple of watts (1-2 mile range) for a year or more before they come knocking. Just choose your frequency carefully, and listen to neighboring stations for interference (which, BTW, almost never occurs).

  14. please mod this up... by imaginate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...It's dead on. last I heard, the US legislature was supposed to support its *citizens* regardless of how (or if) they spend money.

    We are not money-spending machines, and that is not our sole duty to our country - we are humans who live here, and this country is *our* country, as it says in our constitution...