930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: vansmack on February 20, 2007, 09:06:00 pm
-
FCC eases rules on media ownership
By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/FCC+eases+rules+on+media+ownership/2100-1028_3-1012027.html (http://news.com.com/FCC+eases+rules+on+media+ownership/2100-1028_3-1012027.html)
Story last modified Mon Jun 02 12:01:51 PDT 2003
The Federal Communications Commission on Monday voted 3-2 to relax rules limiting ownership of TV stations, radio stations and newspapers, saying that decades-old regulations are obsolete in part because of the rise of the Internet and other new technologies.
Under the new rules, broadcast networks may own TV stations that reach 45 percent of the national audience, an increase of 10 percentage points, and in most cases a company may now own both a newspaper and a radio station in the same area. Media mergers still must be approved by the FCC and the Justice Department.
The widely anticipated vote split along party lines as expected, with the three Republican commissioners backing the new rules and saying that a pair of recent appeals court decisions provided a strong impetus for the change.
During the 90-minute commission meeting that was briefly disrupted by anticorporate activists, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said America needs "modern rules that take into account the explosion of new media outlets" and are not tied to a "bygone black-and-white era." Powell added: "Without today's surgery, the rules would assuredly meet a swift death" at the hands of the federal judiciary.
Over the last few weeks, the impending vote on broadcast ownership and cross-ownership rules morphed from an obscure regulatory process into a national debate over modifying rules that had limited how many TV or radio stations a media company may own.
Powell and his allies argued that technology offers a wealth of media alternatives simply not available a generation ago. The argument goes like this: The Internet, 802.11 wireless networks, XM and Sirius satellite radio, DirecTV, hundreds of cable channels, new low-power FM radio, and more magazines and books show that deregulation tends to encourage public discourse.
Powell stressed that the vote represented a "modest although significant change" in the rules that modified them rather than eliminating them.
The two Democratic commissioners sharply dissented on Monday, claiming that the changes will curb the number of different perspectives heard on the air and even herald "the end of democracy."
"Those who believe that the Internet will save us from the same fate (of consolidation) should realize that the leading news sources on the Internet are controlled by the same media giants who control radio, TV, newspapers and cable," Commissioner Michael Copps said.
Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a former aide to Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said that "neither cable nor the Internet has changed the market power" of large media conglomerates. Copps added that the end of American democracy could be nigh, with a "dark cloud now looming over the future of American media."
After the vote, a small group of women activists began shouting, "Mass deregulation of the mass communication is the end of democracy!" They were escorted out of the room by police.
At one level, Monday's vote represents a high-stakes power struggle at FCC headquarters between left-leaning groups--along with a few conservative allies like the National Rifle Association--and free-market groups and Republicans in Congress. The FCC's tense internal deliberations also highlight an ideological conflict between two wildly different views of how to keep prices low and competition robust: Is it wiser to increase the number of federal regulations or to gradually rescind them?
A history lesson
The old rules came under fire in the courts, where a series of judicial rulings have gradually gutted some of the FCC's media ownership guidelines. In some of the cases, federal judges have declared the rules unconstitutional and have even ordered the commission to rewrite them.
In a February 2002 decision, the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with media companies, including Fox, NBC, Viacom, and the National Association of Broadcasters, against the FCC. The organizations had claimed the FCC exceeded its own authority and violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act; the court agreed, saying the FCC's regulations were "arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law."
A few months later, in April 2002, the same appeals court reached a similar conclusion in the Sinclair Broadcast Group v. FCC case. In that case as well, the court tossed the old rules back to the FCC, saying: "We hold that the commission has failed to demonstrate that (the rule) is not arbitrary and capricious."
At the heart of the FCC's media ownership squabble is the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which handed the FCC broad authority to deregulate the way the broadcast and cable TV industries worked. It repealed some of the laws prohibiting telephone-cable and cable-broadcast ownership, and made it easier for a single broadcaster to reach a large number of American households.
It also set in motion the process that has led to Monday's scheduled vote. The 1996 law ordered the FCC to review "all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review" and "repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest."
Copyright ©1995-2007 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
-
Please summarize in 10 words or less.
Thanks
-
if you're not willing to read the first paragraph (which provides your desired summary), why should anyone go through the greater effort of catering to your lazyness? oh, wait, it's the intarnets, someone will step up...
<small>[ 02-20-2007, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: sweetcell ]</small>
-
Originally whined by jeffml:
Please summarize in 10 words or less.
Thanks
Develop the ability to read more than 10 words.
-
people still listen to the radio? (other than when forced to)
-
Alright!! Make it 20 words. Bottom line is radio sucked for years. Only decent stations (in Baltimore area) is WRNR and WTMD.
-
i'm guessing that you guys figured out that this happened in 2003.
the fcc is currently back to the drawing board on media ownership after the courts shot down their last attempt. at a recent hearing, the democratic majority of the senate commerce committee told chairman martin that it expected the commission to finish its localism proceeding prior to drafting the new rules. so everything is up in the air, though i wouldn't hold my breath for significant improvement.
-
kids today refuse to read unless they can download it into an ipod.
-
I'm 44
-
stupidity is ageless
-
That is funny.
-
Corporate Conglomerates can own more radio stations nationwide.
And since that has a lot of big words, try this: pretty soon you're going to hear a lot more of what you already change the channel to avoid hearing on the radio, thanks to a new decision by our government.
How's that?
-
Do you need to have the perfect mix of music on every minute? Maybe your favorite music would sound that much better if you got away from it for a while
-
Originally posted by Mixed Veg:
Do you need to have the perfect mix of music on every minute?
Not really, although it's possible, but is it too much to ask to have it on for at least a few minutes rather than having to listen to the latest winner or runner up of American Idol on every channel (Kelly Clarkson is obviously excused from that statement)?
-
vansmack -- i am with you on the state of radio. it sucks. but you do know that the decision you are referring to is four years old, and was in large part rejected by the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. the supreme court refused to review the third circuit decision. the FCC is now in the process of reforming its media ownership rules in response to the third circuit decision.
sorry if you already know all of this and are just providing general commentary. just want to make sure folks know that the information in the article is not recent news, although the media ownership docket is very much active.
-
I am aware, and I realize now that I posted the 2003 article and not the new article that said they were thinking of going after it agian ahead of a possible takeover of the White House by the deomcrats. I'll see if I can find the new article.
Thanks for pointing that out and sorry for the confusion.
-
2003 article? Now I'm really glad I didn't read the article! Anyway the state of commercial radio will only lead more people to satellite, digital and other forms. I'm finding myself listening to my ipod more and more in the car anyway unless I'm listening to sports talk.
-
Originally posted by jeffml:
2003 article? Now I'm really glad I didn't read the article! Anyway the state of commercial radio will only lead more people to satellite, digital and other forms. I'm finding myself listening to my ipod more and more in the car anyway unless I'm listening to sports talk.
thank you for supporting the xm/sirius merger.
-
see, i was correct about the ipod thing . . . and i apologize for stating that you might be stupid, jeff; it was ageless thing to do.
-
Believe me no offense taken. My original post about summarizing the article was in jest anyway. (I actually did read the article).
-
As if redundant and limited play lists of crappy bands on the radio isn't bad enuf, catch this, music lovers:
Equally as worrisome is the Live Nation/Clear Channel merger/acquisition and Live/Nation's purchase of MusicToday/Red Light Management in late 2006. In essence, this giant, in many towns (DC included and exacerbated IF they get their HardRock Hotel permits for DC) will own:
Control of the talent (Mangement of bands thru Red Light)
Touring (thru LittleBigMan and xray touring)
Ticketing - thru facility/booking with Live Nation
CDs and Music downloads (digital music/MusicToday)
Radio play (Clear Channel's tv/media-PR/radio ownership)
on-line ticketing (both LiveNations and MusicToday)
merchandising (order fulfillment/MusicToday/venue concession %)
In essence, Live Nation will decide which bands play DC; what the ticket price is; and what bands will succeed due to media exposure/radio/tv play time.
Independent club owners won't get a shot at booking Live Nation bands if Live Nation has their "own" facility in that town; and if they do, they have to pay a premium fee and/or larger % of the night's proceeds and merch sales. Where's the Dept. of Justice/FCC/ and FTC NOW? Thoughts or more info?
Check out Wikipedia for Clear Channel/Live Nation:
"Top executives
* Lowry Mays - company founder, chairman; also Director of Live Nation
* Mark Mays - son of Lowry Mays, chief executive officer, president and chief operating officer; named CEO after serving as interim CEO since his father underwent surgery to treat a blood clot and bleeding in his brain; also Vice Chairman of Live Nation.
* Randall Mays - son of Lowry Mays, executive vice president and chief financial officer; also Chairman of Live Nation.
* John Hogan - president and chief operating officer, Clear Channel Radio
* Tom Hicks, Clear Channel's former vice-chairman, is a past donor to Bush's political campaigning. The two were at the centre of a scandal when Mr. Bush was governor and when Mr. Hicks chaired a University of Texas investment board that awarded large investment-management contracts to several companies close to the Bush family - including the Carlyle Group, on whose payroll Mr. Bush had been until weeks previously.
LittleBigMan.com
Musictoday.com
Redlightmanagement.com
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=194146&p=irol-irhome (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=194146&p=irol-irhome)
http://www.musictoday.com/about/artistServices.asp (http://www.musictoday.com/about/artistServices.asp)
-
How would you define a "crappy band"? Aren't they all great if they work hard and make a solid effort?
-
I'll leave the formal definition to you, the lawyer. How's that working for you?
-
how's law school working for me? exciting! intellectually challenging! stimulating! a means to an end!!
-
Clear Channel's VP said, "We didn't do anything wrong." I guess that explains why they agreed to pay a $3.5M fine...read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501286.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501286.html)
-
Originally posted by Bartelby:
I'll leave the formal definition to you, the lawyer. How's that working for you?
Great. just what we need...yet another lawyer.