FCC Takes First Step Toward Allowing More Broadcast TV Mergers (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In a divided vote today, the Federal Communications Commission took steps that could lead to more consolidation among TV broadcasters, reducing the number of sources of local news. Today's changes revolve around the media ownership cap -- a limit on how many households a TV or radio broadcaster is allowed to reach. The rules are meant to promote diversity of media ownership, giving consumers access to different content and viewpoints. The cap currently prevents a company from reaching no more than 39 percent of U.S. households with broadcast TV. Large broadcasters hate the cap because it prevents them from getting even bigger. And since Trump took office and Ajit Pai was named chairman of the FCC, they've been lobbying to have it revised. The FCC's vote today starts to do that. First, it reinstates a rule known as the "UHF discount," which lets broadcasters have a bigger reach in areas where they use a certain type of technology. And second, it starts plans to revisit and raise the media ownership cap.

Comments

MSM

[speedplane]

For someone who railed against the "mainstream media", it's surprising that Trump would support a policy allowing the largest media companies to become even larger.

Re:MSM

[SeaFox]

For someone who railed against the "mainstream media", it's surprising that Trump would support a policy allowing the largest media companies to become even larger.

No, it not.
Trump doing the opposite of what he said at an earlier time is completely expected now by me.

Re:MSM

[rtb61]

You need more mergers, otherwise how can there only be one, the 'Big Brother' channel, everyone has to watch and that watches you back. Heck they might as well be one channel, they all repeat the exact same corporate propaganda and they all promote the same shallow narcissistic lifestyle (the lifestyle of their stars and pseudo celebrities). All the channels and just one network, the 'Big Brother' network, the watches you.

Re:Cut the cord for real

[tgetzoya]

I use my 55inch 4k TV as a monitor. It's great for playing steam games with friends using a Xbox 360 controller. I refuse to pay 60$ a year for the "privilege" of multiplayer on PS4/Xbox One so when I play anything multiplayer it's on Steam. When I use a wireless mouse and keyboard it's a little painful with lag but it's manageable. Since I only use Windows for Windows-only things, it's the only computer that has Windows installed.

When I want to do real work, I have a Linux laptop.

Re:What's broadcast TV???

[Tablizer]

You see, that's the old annoying oligopoly set. How we have a new annoying oligopoly set.

Re:Turn off your televisions!

[quonset]

I've watched two f1 races and that's it this month.

That's what I do miss after I cut the cord; F1, BBC (news and Dr. Who) and college football. Aside from those three items, I honestly can't think of anything else I miss by not having tv. What I do remember is constantly flipping through channels either trying to find something to watch, or avoiding commercials.

If ESPN would broadcast college football without one having to be subscribed to a cable company, I would be very happy.

This is definitely news

[nehumanuscrede]

for the four people who still watch and trust anything on Television.

Been there. Didn't like it.

[kevmeister]

I have a home in Indio, the largest city in the Coachella Valley of California. It's mostly known for Palm Springs and the Coachella Music and Arts Festival. It's high profile, but not large, Two companies own all of the local broadcast TV stations. One owns ABC, CBS, Fox, and Telmundo stations. The other has NBC and CW. I suspect that they own Univision, but I'm not quite sure.

That's it for diversity. We see the same news stories from the same reporters, often introduced by the same anchors. This is allowed because we are a "small market". The stations are all "low power" stations. I can watch the same news six times a day, if I really want to be bored.

I wonder if the two could soon be allowed to merge and reduce local coverage to one source. The new regulations might allow this. News coverage is already badly warped by mega-owners. How many subtly (of not subtly) news stories are ties to Disney movies on ABC stations? I see a LOT. How many commentaries are influenced and news stories perspectives "adjusted" for the corporate masters? I don't know, but I am sure it's a lot. This change is a very bad idea.

Sigh. Another cool thing bites the...

[WheezyJoe]

Free OTA TV could be a good thing, just like a free Internet could be a good thing (free as in free from being spied on by your ISP, and free as in hosting your own server w/o having to pay for "business class".. still gotta pay a fair price for the service). But no, in the name of the most holy imaginary hand of the free market, everything consolidates under the biggest umbrella to get the biggest profit out of the least effort.

It doesn't have to be this way. The airwaves, and the Internet, belongs in one way or another to the public. You know, us. But we keep electing goons who give it away to people who take 'em out to pricey steak dinners and give 'em free rides on private jets. Do you know who your goon... uhhh Congressman is? What's he's been up to? I'll bet not, and that's why we can't have nice things.

This effects local TV stations

[rsilvergun]

and like it or not millions of people get their news from those and choose how they vote based on that news. You should be utterly, balls to the walls terrified of this. Billionaires are going to sweep in and buy out the last vestiges of independent news. They're then going to subtlety manipulate people.

Here's a prefect example: The stories about North Korea's "Super Mighty" strike. The phrase Super Mighty in English sounds childish. It's meant to diminish the perceived threat from North Korea. The word "strike" is to make sure you know they're still a danger. In other words: You're being told it's just like Iraq. A weak enemy that'll roll over when we move in.

That's the kind of propaganda that'll be everywhere, not just on the major Cable networks. And that will suck, hard. Because dumb poor people will see it and vote you (and your draft age kids) into a war.

Re:This effects local TV stations

[Obfuscant]

The phrase Super Mighty in English sounds childish. It's meant to diminish the perceived threat from North Korea.

The problem with your argument is that this phrase was used by North Korea itself, reported by Reuters:

The Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party, struck an aggressive tone earlier on Thursday.

"In the case of our super-mighty preemptive strike being launched, it will completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists' invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes," it said.

It is easy to forget while living in countries where the press is free and is expected to publish things that make the government look bad, that places like North Korea don't have such freedoms, and certainly not when you consider that the source is the official publication of the ruling political party.

Do you believe that North Korea used this phrase to deliberately diminish the seriousness of their threat?

That's the kind of propaganda that'll be everywhere, not just on the major Cable networks.

I hadn't heard the phrase before, so I did a quick google for it. It seems to be everywhere, not just the major cable networks. ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, USA Today, and The Telegraph are all hits high on the list.

I think it is a good thing when such statements are aired openly and by every news organization. I don't see how loosening the cap on coverage areas is going to change this specific situation at all. I also think that concerns about billionaires buying up media and manipulating the news are about two decades, at least, too late. It doesn't require just one billionaire buying all the news media to have this happen, just the fact that billionaires are in charge of setting news policy for the ones they already own.

Bernard Goldberg wrote a book about his experiences at CBS. It's a fascinating read, and it was written almost 20 years ago.

Re:What's broadcast TV???

[by (1706743)]

For those occasional times when I want to watch TV (sports, etc.), it's nice to be able to flip on the TV and get a nice 720 or 1080 picture w/surround sound, zero streaming issues common to "questionable" sources, and pay $0 for it (my "antenna" is a length of speaker wire).

Yes, for all of my actual content it's Netflix, locally stored media, etc.

Old rules prevent creating new networks

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The old rules prevent anybody (with enough money) from buying an outlet in each of the bulk of the markets and setting up a new network. (That would be doable even by parties of relatively modest means, because there are a lot of little stations that are hanging on by their fingernails which might be available cheap.) They're limited to directly reaching about a third of the potential viewers (and partnering with other owners if they want to reach more).

Meanwhile, they don't keep someone from buying up essentially all the outlets in a particular area (since taking over more of the stations doesn't add any more potential viewers).

Both of those reduce diversity - the first nationally, the second within regions.

Seems to me that eliminating the rule would fix the first one and increase the diversity of opinion available to viewers.

(Meanwhile, if the FCC wants to prohibit something to try to increase diversity, they could limit the number of outlets within each region a single party could own. That would also free up some outlets for new wholly-owned network builders, too.)

Re:And when it's all owned by a single corp...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You realize that there's not much distinction in corporate ownership, right? NBC is Comcast is 30% of Hulu (ABC has 30%, Fox 30% and Turner 10%). Heck, many popular YouTube channels are owned by the same cartel. PewDiePie's channel was owned by Disney/ABC.