They did it: FCC approves looser media ownership regulations (1 Viewer)

[MickeS]

Robert, one could of course argue that the government should do everything it can to make it easier for people to make those choices, since that would be a benefit to democracy and society as a whole. As it is now, the government seems to not see a problem with making it even harder for people to seek out different points of view. To say that more concentrated tv-station ownership is OK because there are websites where there might be different points of view is just not a sound argument.

/Mike

 

[RobertR]

Robert, one could of course argue that the government should do everything it can to make it easier for people to make those choices, since that would be a benefit to democracy and society as a whole.

Mike, it seems then that it boils down to whether you think it's government's responsibility to provide those choices for people and think it's the entity best able to do so, or not. I don't happen to believe the former is necessarily so.

 

[Shawn C]

The last time I checked, this was a free market society and if Eisner wants to buy 10,000 newspapers and 5,000 TV stations, then let him buy them.

There will always be competition as there is always someone out there who think they can do it better than the 'big guys'.

Buy what you want, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Jason Ly]

Right,

Well, here's my two cents. All one really need to do is look at what has already happened with the previous deregulation of the radio industry.

Here's a couple of questions:

Do you think radio is better today than before 1996?

Do concert ticket cost more or less in relation to income today than before the same time period?

In 1996 Clear Channel owned 40 radio stations, today the company owns 1225. This has lead to a homogenization of what receives airplay and makes it more difficult for local acts to get airplay in there home market. Historically, this is how new styles of music have bubbled up in the radio era. In 2000 the company purchased SFX, owner of a large majority of concert venues in the US. This has led to an unheard of control of the music industry by one company.
The incredible rise in cost of music events has happened at the same time SFX and then Clear Channel started cornering the market on music venues, though TicketMaster shares blame in this area as well.

I expect with the new deregulation rules a similar pattern of homogenization and price increases(to advertisers, not the general public, though one never knows). I would expect if this ruling is allowed to stand news reporting specifically will suffer due to allowing cross ownership of both television stations and newspapers in the same market.

 

[Chris Beveridge]

While it is indeed a free market society, within certain bounds, we're dealing with PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves. That's yours and mine. Hence there used to be rules about fairness, requirements about certain things that must be done in the public interest.

Most of this has been done away with, and this is another of those final nails in the coffin for it.

 

[RobertR]

While it is indeed a free market society, within certain bounds, we're dealing with PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves.

Okay, I know we're pushing it with respect to Forum rules, but I do not accept the fundamental premise that the airwaves should be publically owned (airwaves are no more "scarce" than newspaper print, real estate, etc.). I think they should be owned, sold, and bought just like any other resource.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The last time I checked, this was a free market society and if Eisner wants to buy 10,000 newspapers and 5,000 TV stations, then let him buy them.

Actually it is not. And has not been completely since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and the trust-busters. Or even before then, if one takes international trade into consideration. Certainly it is true that right now, restrictions on how much of certain types of business can be owned by any one company are looser than in some times of the past (note that I have not made a value-judgment on this—I only state the fact); but certain restrictions are still in place. And in some instances are actually being strengthened.

What is in debate is the amount of a market that can be owned by any company; not that it can all be owned by one company.

To cite examples on free market restrictions, I would point to the breakup of Standard Oil (there are numerous other instances from that era) and more recently restrictions (still in effect) on IBM’s (then) practice of bundling hardware & software.

Or restrictions on trade with some countries due to internal practices such as apartheid. Or restrictions on trade due to environmental factors (e.g ivory). Or restrictions on trade due to internal political considerations (e.g. additional tariffs on quantities of imported lamb from Australia and New Zealand over a certain quota). Now none of these examples is necessarily bad; but they are all examples that we do not function in pure ‘free market’ economy.

 

[Lew Crippen]

airwaves are no more "scarce" than newspaper print, real estate, etc

I’m curious as to why you believe this to be the case, given that that the number of frequencies that exist for broadcast purposes is limited by the laws of physics. And even more limited by international agreements as to what frequencies can be used for commercial purposes and which ones are restricted for other purposes (this is particularly true in the ‘short-wave’ spectrum).

I don’t believe that newsprint is restricted by any physical laws, other than the number of tress we are ailing to sacrifice.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I do not accept the fundamental premise that the airwaves should be publically owned (airwaves are no more "scarce" than newspaper print, real estate, etc.).

Whether you accept or reject this, the point is that the airwaves are owned by the public. This FCC decision is hardly in the public's best interest.

 

[Lew Crippen]

And in practical terms, the airwaves are limited by the FCC—they issue licenses that allow broadcasting and telecasting. They set limits as to the frequency, power, type of transmission (AM, FM, etc.).

 

[RobertR]

I don’t believe that newsprint is restricted by any physical laws

My point with respect to newsprint was to compare broadcasting with newspapers, and the fact that there is more than physics at work here. Economics also plays a part. Newsprint, and the other resources necessary to operate a newspaper, is not free. It is scarce (if this were not the case, it would cost nothing to operate). Therefore, in practial terms, you can't say that newspapers are "unlimited" while airwaves are "limited". How many newspapers are there in a typical large city, compared to radio stations or TV channels? Typically fewer (MUCH fewer, in fact). Periodicals can be bought, just like broadcasting entities. Has anyone demanded that the Tribune Corporation divest itself of the LA Times, based on "excessive media concentration"? Are there FNC (Federal Newspaper Commission) rules about entry into markets, who can own what, etc.? Why not? It's FCC rules (FAR more than market forces) that stifle diversity on the airwaves.

 

[Ryan Wright]

How many newspapers are there in a typical large city, compared to radio stations or TV channels?

Of course, you know those radio stations are mostly owned by the same company, right? Around here, Clear Channel owns most of it. Country, rock, easy listening, oldies - all operated out of the same building by the same company.

 

[RobertR]

Of course, you know those radio stations are mostly owned by the same company, right?

I addressed that by pointing out that there's nothing to prevent the same thing happening with newspapers (The LA Times is owned by a corporation in Chicago), yet we don't see demands for a Federal Newspaper Commission to oversee "media concentration". And as I pointed out, it's the FCC itself that restricts market entry and diversity of broadcasting.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Even though you did not say so, I take it that you accept that the airwaves are indeed limited.

I cannot enter into a discussion as to your premise as it would violate forum rules, but I would suggest that if you answered your own question as to the lack of a FNC and thought a bit about the print media before broadcasting was a force it might be insightful.

I have lived in several places with restrictions on both print and broadcast media and have a lot of observations as to the effects on society. But it would be as much a violation of forum rules to comment on those countries as it is to so comment on the U.S.

 

[RobertR]

if you answered your own question as to the lack of a FNC and thought a bit about the print media before broadcasting was a force it might be insightful.

I have thought about it. I consider it very unfortunate that the decision was made very early to place all sorts of restrictions on broadcasting that historically were not placed on print media. I believe this decision was based on a certain view of the role of government by those in power at the time, not on physics.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I accept the notion that resources in general are limited, including airwaves.

Of course all resources are limited. But you can go to the bank and borrow money. You can’t go borrow a frequency that does not exist.

The limitations of such dissimilar resources are in no way analogous and it is not at all logical to suggest that they are.

 

[RobertR]

But you can go to the bank and borrow money

An infinite amount? For free? Please tell me where! And there's an infinite amount of free newsprint, printers, staff, writing talent, business expertise, and delivery means? Also tell me where, so I can be rich with no effort!

Why are those supposedly "scarce" broadcast channels (now numbering in the HUNDREDS, if you including cable and satellite) so much greater in number than newspapers? Why is something with LESS scarcity regulated more than something that has MORE scarcity?

 

[MickeS]

EDIT: I misread your statement.

 

[RobertR]

I'm not sure I understand that question correctly.

I'm saying that the justification for regulation of the airwaves was based on the notion that they are uniquely "scarce", that they are SO much different from any other resource that they need to be treated differently. I say this is a false premise. The very fact that we have access to plenty more channels than newspapers in a given city disproves it.

Edit: Ok.

 

[Lew Crippen]

An infinite amount? For free? Please tell me where! And there's an infinite amount of free newsprint, printers, staff, writing talent, business expertise, and delivery means? Also tell me where, so I can be rich with no effort!

Robert, I’m assuming that you are not deliberately missing the point, although you are certainty not being at all responsive to the concept which I proposed.

To begin I don’t recall ever using the word infinite. In fact, I said specifically in my post, “Of course all resources are limited”. Your use of the word ‘infinite’ in such a fashion indicates that you have little interest in real dialogue.

I made the distinction between finite resources such as money or newsprint but that are resources which are all expandable beyond what is currently available and a finite resource such as the number of frequencies available for broadcast purposes, but which cannot be expanded.

The fact that today there are more radio and TV stations in an individual city than there are newspapers, does nothing to change the very real physical limitations as to the number of potential radio and TV stations which can broadcast.

However, the potential number amount of print media is not so limited. That number is limited primarily by the number of advertisers and readers who will (today) choose to support those papers by reading and advertising.

The reason that I wrote about borrowing money, is that by doing so, one can start a paper. There are many who do so today, even though they are not necessarily in the mainstream. For example Dallas, where I live, is now a one newspaper town (though it had three not that long ago). We also have an alternative, ‘free’ paper, the suburb where I live has its own weekly, there are shopping guides with a bit of news all over, there is at least one ‘gay’, free paper, there tend to be from time to time ‘radical’ papers to one degree or another. All of these papers were started with little or no money and without the need to procure a federal licensee.

The demise of mainstream print media (apart from the competition from radio and TV) has much to do with chain newspapers driving out weaker, less well-funded newspapers.

Nothing that I have written has anything to do with how much the airwaves should be regulated, only that the airwaves are indeed more limited than newsprint. . It is apparent to me from your postings that you have an agenda as to the regulation of the airwaves. Which is your right.

However it is not necessary to ignore physical laws governing the limitations on the number of radio and TV stations in order to make your point. For me you will be far more effective, if you present a case acknowledging those limitations.

One final thing, cable channels are not limited by frequency constraints (though there may be some bandwidth issues on older systems) nor are they governed by the FCC (as far as I know). This is why you can say and show things on cable, not possible on broadcast radio and TV.