In a narrow ruling unlikely to have an immediate effect on current broadcasters, a federal appeals court on Thursday overturned a 2008 decision by the Federal communications Commission to relax restrictions on cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same city.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, based in Philadelphia, did not rule on the merits of the 2008 regulatory changes, which made it easier for a single company to own both a station and a newspaper in the same locality. Instead, the court said that the F.C.C. had failed to allow sufficient time for official notice and public comment on the new rules, as required by law.
The ruling Thursday essentially sent the issue back to the F.C.C., which is undergoing a mandatory re-evaluation of ownership rules anyway. At the same time, the court upheld most of the media ownership rules handed down by the commission in 2008.
In a statement, the general counsel for the F.C.C., took no notice of the cross-ownership ruling and instead cited the court’s approval of the other rules for ownership, saying that the decision affirms the F.C.C.’s authority to promote competition, localism and diversity in the modern marketplace.”
But counsel for Free Press, a public advocacy group that supported the challenge to the 2008 ownership standard, said that today’s decision is a sweeping victory for the public interest because it concluded that competition in the media — not more concentration — will provide Americans with the local news and information they need.
The head of Media Access Project, one of the groups that brought the case — and the lead lawyer for those groups — acknowledged that the ruling did little more than bounce the issue back to the F.C.C., which will include it in the reassessment of rules that the commission is mandated to make every four years. He also said the more immediate impact would come in the radio business, where efforts by some companies to expand the ownership limits — currently up to eight stations in a single city — were rejected.
The broadcast ownership rules have always been politically charged, with Republican administrations arguing for almost unfettered freedom to own stations and Democratic administrations pushing for limitations to enhance diversity and avoid dominance by the largest media voices. He added that it was possible and even likely that the current F.C.C., which he said seemed more focused on Internet issues, could reinstate the 2008 rule. And then they will take it up again in court.
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
12 July 2011
31 July 2010
Univision Radio to Pay $1 Million in Payola Inquiry
Bloomberg
Univision Radio Inc., a Spanish- language broadcaster, will pay $1 million to settle claims it secretly accepted payment from a record label for playing songs on the air, the Federal Communications Commission said.
“Payola -- the idea of pay-for-play -- misleads the listening public,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said today in a statement. The agency is committed “to ensuring that broadcasters play it straight with the public,” he said.
The broadcaster, which owns or operates 70 stations in 16 U.S. markets, also entered a plea in a related criminal case filed by the Justice Department at federal court in Los Angeles, the FCC said.
The case “relates to a payola scheme by an isolated group of employees” at Univision Music Group from 2003 to 2006, Univision said in an e-mailed statement. New York-based Univision reported the misconduct to federal prosecutors, and the music group was sold in 2008, the statement said. Universal Music Group bought the unit, according to a company statement.
Univision has agreed to train workers on payola restrictions, the FCC said.
Univision was purchased in 2007 by a group that includes Madison Dearborn Partners LLC, Providence Equity Partners Inc., Saban Capital Group, TPG Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Four radio companies in 2007 agreed to pay $12.5 million to settle U.S. claims their stations took money and gifts to play certain songs, ending a probe of CBS Radio Inc., Clear Channel Communications Inc., Entercom Communications Corp. and Citadel Broadcasting Corp. The four companies agreed to bar stations or employees from accepting payments to play songs.
In the 1950s and early 1960s, record companies paid radio disc jockeys to play rock ‘n roll songs. The practice was made illegal.
“Payola -- the idea of pay-for-play -- misleads the listening public,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said today in a statement. The agency is committed “to ensuring that broadcasters play it straight with the public,” he said.
The broadcaster, which owns or operates 70 stations in 16 U.S. markets, also entered a plea in a related criminal case filed by the Justice Department at federal court in Los Angeles, the FCC said.
The case “relates to a payola scheme by an isolated group of employees” at Univision Music Group from 2003 to 2006, Univision said in an e-mailed statement. New York-based Univision reported the misconduct to federal prosecutors, and the music group was sold in 2008, the statement said. Universal Music Group bought the unit, according to a company statement.
Univision has agreed to train workers on payola restrictions, the FCC said.
Univision was purchased in 2007 by a group that includes Madison Dearborn Partners LLC, Providence Equity Partners Inc., Saban Capital Group, TPG Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Four radio companies in 2007 agreed to pay $12.5 million to settle U.S. claims their stations took money and gifts to play certain songs, ending a probe of CBS Radio Inc., Clear Channel Communications Inc., Entercom Communications Corp. and Citadel Broadcasting Corp. The four companies agreed to bar stations or employees from accepting payments to play songs.
In the 1950s and early 1960s, record companies paid radio disc jockeys to play rock ‘n roll songs. The practice was made illegal.
14 July 2010
Court Strikes Down FCC's Indecency Policy
The Wall Street Journal
A federal appeals court threw out the FCC's rules on indecent speech Tuesday, in a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government's power to control what is said on television and radio.
A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policies violate the First Amendment and are "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here."
The decision doesn't mean broadcast TV and radio shows will now be littered with profanity, because advertisers and viewers would likely complain. But the ruling will likely end, for now, the commission's campaign to cleanse the airwaves of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of hefty fines.
"I think the notion that broadcasters are going to be dropping f-bombs in prime time is ludicrous," said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. "If we wanted to do that we could do that from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.," when FCC indecency standards don't apply.
The judges found that the agency's decision to sanction broadcasters' airing of one-time or "fleeting" expletives is unconstitutional, and suggested the FCC's broader indecency enforcement efforts are unconstitutional as well.
The judges left the door open for the FCC to try to write a new indecency policy that does pass constitutional muster. They indicated such a policy would have to be very specific, and leave little to the discretion of government regulators.
It's also possible the Supreme Court could be asked to revisit rulings that have formed the basis for government curbs on indecent broadcast speech, including a 1978 decision that allowed the FCC to fine a radio station for broadcasting a monologue on dirty words by the late comedian George Carlin.
The appeals court suggested such a review could be overdue, as today's "media landscape," with hundreds of cable and satellite channels and Internet-based video sites and social networks, "would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978."
Broadcasters and free-speech advocates applauded the decision, while Fox Television, which led the case against the FCC along with other broadcast networks, said it "always felt that the government's position on fleeting expletives was unconstitutional."
Fox is a division of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.
Broadcasters complained they couldn't figure out when they had run afoul of FCC indecency cops. The rules have always been somewhat subjective. The FCC said ABC's un-bleeped airing of the World War II movie "Saving Private Ryan" was permissible, but later fined a PBS station for airing a documentary on blues musicians that included some of the same profanities.
"We agree with the networks that the indecency policy is impermissibly vague," Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the court.
Fox and other broadcasters sued the FCC in 2006 after the agency said the networks had violated indecency rules when airing un-bleeped profanities of celebrities during live televised events. It was part of a broader effort by the Bush-era FCC to crack down on broadcast profanities and racy programming that saw indecency fines skyrocket.
Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who led expanded FCC efforts to crack down on raunchy broadcasts during the Bush administration, said he thought the court's decision was inevitable. "I have long believed the constitutional underpinnings of indecency law were weak," he said.
The FCC offered few clues on Tuesday about what it might do now. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski released a statement saying the agency was reviewing the decision.
The ruling could have implications for another high-profile indecency case, involving CBS Corp.'s $500,000 fine for airing a brief exposure of singer Janet Jackson's breast during her performance at the 2004 Super Bowl. Last year the Supreme Court ordered the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, to re-examine its judgment in favor of CBS on technical issues. If CBS loses, however, it could ask to have its Super Bowl case reconsidered on constitutional grounds in light of Tuesday's ruling.
The Second Circuit court had suggested in 2007 that FCC indecency policies violated broadcasters' First Amendment rights. But it struck down the rule on narrower grounds, finding the commission failed to follow proper procedures in adopting it. In April 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the procedural ruling, but sent the case back to the Second Circuit to consider First Amendment questions.
A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policies violate the First Amendment and are "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here."
The decision doesn't mean broadcast TV and radio shows will now be littered with profanity, because advertisers and viewers would likely complain. But the ruling will likely end, for now, the commission's campaign to cleanse the airwaves of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of hefty fines.
"I think the notion that broadcasters are going to be dropping f-bombs in prime time is ludicrous," said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. "If we wanted to do that we could do that from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.," when FCC indecency standards don't apply.
The judges found that the agency's decision to sanction broadcasters' airing of one-time or "fleeting" expletives is unconstitutional, and suggested the FCC's broader indecency enforcement efforts are unconstitutional as well.
The judges left the door open for the FCC to try to write a new indecency policy that does pass constitutional muster. They indicated such a policy would have to be very specific, and leave little to the discretion of government regulators.
It's also possible the Supreme Court could be asked to revisit rulings that have formed the basis for government curbs on indecent broadcast speech, including a 1978 decision that allowed the FCC to fine a radio station for broadcasting a monologue on dirty words by the late comedian George Carlin.
The appeals court suggested such a review could be overdue, as today's "media landscape," with hundreds of cable and satellite channels and Internet-based video sites and social networks, "would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978."
Broadcasters and free-speech advocates applauded the decision, while Fox Television, which led the case against the FCC along with other broadcast networks, said it "always felt that the government's position on fleeting expletives was unconstitutional."
Fox is a division of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.
Broadcasters complained they couldn't figure out when they had run afoul of FCC indecency cops. The rules have always been somewhat subjective. The FCC said ABC's un-bleeped airing of the World War II movie "Saving Private Ryan" was permissible, but later fined a PBS station for airing a documentary on blues musicians that included some of the same profanities.
"We agree with the networks that the indecency policy is impermissibly vague," Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the court.
Fox and other broadcasters sued the FCC in 2006 after the agency said the networks had violated indecency rules when airing un-bleeped profanities of celebrities during live televised events. It was part of a broader effort by the Bush-era FCC to crack down on broadcast profanities and racy programming that saw indecency fines skyrocket.
Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who led expanded FCC efforts to crack down on raunchy broadcasts during the Bush administration, said he thought the court's decision was inevitable. "I have long believed the constitutional underpinnings of indecency law were weak," he said.
The FCC offered few clues on Tuesday about what it might do now. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski released a statement saying the agency was reviewing the decision.
The ruling could have implications for another high-profile indecency case, involving CBS Corp.'s $500,000 fine for airing a brief exposure of singer Janet Jackson's breast during her performance at the 2004 Super Bowl. Last year the Supreme Court ordered the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, to re-examine its judgment in favor of CBS on technical issues. If CBS loses, however, it could ask to have its Super Bowl case reconsidered on constitutional grounds in light of Tuesday's ruling.
The Second Circuit court had suggested in 2007 that FCC indecency policies violated broadcasters' First Amendment rights. But it struck down the rule on narrower grounds, finding the commission failed to follow proper procedures in adopting it. In April 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the procedural ruling, but sent the case back to the Second Circuit to consider First Amendment questions.
21 June 2010
FCC: Do Media Ownership Limits Make Sense?
Associated Press
Even the news industry's free fall probably will not be enough to wipe out complicated federal rules designed to restrain the power of media companies.
For decades, the Federal Communications Commission has imposed strict limits preventing any company from controlling too many media properties in the same market. These limits were established to ensure that communities have choices of newspapers and local TV and radio stations.
Congress requires the FCC to take a hard look at the rules every four years to determine whether they still serve the public interest. If they don't, the FCC has to rewrite them.
Now, as the FCC kicks off its latest review, it faces calls to pare the limits because traditional media companies are no longer the almighty players that they were when the ownership rules were first enacted.
Newspaper readers and advertisers have migrated to the Internet, where a lot of content is free and advertising costs less. As a result, newsrooms have shrunk and newspapers have sought bankruptcy protection or shut down. Television broadcasters are suffering too as cable, satellite TV and the Internet splinter audiences and siphon ad dollars - forcing stations to seek new revenue streams and even raising questions about the future of free, over-the-air TV.
Against this backdrop, media companies argue that the FCC's ownership limits no longer make sense and should be relaxed, or even scrapped, so that the companies can get bigger in order to better compete and survive.
"These rules need to fall away," says Jerry Fritz, general counsel for Allbritton Communications, an Arlington, Va., company that owns eight TV stations in seven markets, a cable station in Washington, D.C., and Politico, a successful online and print publication that covers politics. Allbritton is also launching a local news website to cover the Washington region. "The FCC rules make no sense anymore," Fritz says.
But the FCC is unlikely to toss out media ownership restrictions entirely. The agency is also under pressure from public interest groups that support strong limits. Andrew Schwartzman, head of the group Media Access Project, argues that such rules remain critical because democracy relies on a vibrant press with many voices.
These groups have a key ally in Michael Copps, one of the three Democrats on the five-member FCC. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has said little publicly about his views on the existing rules, and his staff has promised a fresh look at the entire media ownership framework. But Genachowski was an architect of the Obama campaign's technology platform, which included a pledge to encourage diversity in media ownership.
Complicating the situation: Even as the FCC launches the 2010 review, the agency still is tied up in a legal battle in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the media ownership reviews of Genachowski's Republican predecessors.
The case goes back to the 2002 review under then-FCC chairman Michael Powell. Powell tried to raise the caps on TV and radio station ownership and relax the so-called "cross-ownership" ban, a rule adopted in 1975 that prohibits common ownership of a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market. (Holdings in some markets, such as Chicago, where Tribune Co. owns WGN radio and TV and the Chicago Tribune, were grandfathered in.)
But Powell's plan drew legal challenges from public interest groups that said he had gone too far and media companies that said he had not gone far enough. So the 3rd Circuit sent the matter back to FCC, telling it to rewrite the rules. And that led Powell's successor, Kevin Martin, to try to ease the cross-ownership ban in the 20 largest media markets. That drew more challenges from both sides.
After Genachowski came to the FCC last year, the agency urged the 3rd Circuit to hold off on considering the case because Martin's rules would soon be superseded by the 2010 review. For a time, the court complied and prevented those rules from going into effect. But in March, the court got tired of waiting for the agency to act and allowed Martin's rules to take force, which could pave the way for cross-ownership deals in the biggest markets. So now, the FCC must decide how to respond in court to the challenges to Martin's actions - even as it launches its own media ownership review.
On both fronts, public interest groups are pushing to roll back Martin's cross-ownership rules and leave the rest of the restrictions in place. Meanwhile, media companies are fighting to lift the cross-ownership ban entirely. They also want some relief from rules that prohibit one company from owning more than one TV station in smaller markets and more than two TV stations in larger markets, including only one of the top four.
Such rules, opponents say, reflect a time when the news business was dominated by just three TV networks and local newspapers - before cable, satellite and the Internet transformed the media, providing outlets for all sorts of viewpoints and voices. Indeed, some of the current ownership rules date in some form to as early as the 1940s. So why, critics ask, should the FCC continue to measure competition by counting broadcast stations and newspapers in individual markets?
"I don't think the average consumer sees the market the way we regulate it," Powell says. "This isn't the way Americans consume media."
Critics also say the rules do more harm than good by artificially inflating the number of media outlets fighting for a limited pool of readers, viewers and advertisers in individual markets. Allowing consolidation, says Harold Furchtgott-Roth, a former Republican FCC commissioner, would let media companies build larger audiences to attract advertisers and spread hefty newsgathering costs by repurposing content across more platforms.
"If we want robust local news, we need to give media companies the opportunity to achieve scale, since producing local news is not cheap," says Rebecca Duke, vice president of distribution for LIN Media, a company based in Providence, R.I., that owns 29 TV stations.
Lifting the rules could help save struggling newspapers or TV stations looking for a buyer, Furchtgott-Roth adds, because often the only potential suitor might be the other major media outlet in town.
One irony not lost on media executives is that the FCC and the Justice Department are expected to approve Comcast Corp.'s proposal to buy a majority stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co. That deal, which would give the nation's largest cable TV operator control of NBC's media empire, would dwarf the types of local media mergers prohibited by the FCC's current rules.
Still, Corie Wright, policy counsel for the public interest group Free Press, insists there is not enough competition in most markets to permit consolidation. Even as cable and the Internet offer many more choices for general news and commentary, most local reporting is still done by newspapers and TV stations, she notes.
Georgetown Law professor Angela Campbell, who represents several public interest groups defending strong ownership limits, fears more consolidation would lead to newsroom layoffs as media companies combine operations and feed the same content to different outlets.
"Every time you have one of these deals, at the end of the day it means one newsroom closes, another lost voice, less local coverage and less diversity of perspective," says FCC Commissioner Copps.
Schwartzman, head of Media Access Project, is also skeptical of the argument that the industry's troubles justify deregulation. After all, he noted, the economy is still emerging from a deep recession that has hit major advertisers in the auto, real estate and retailing sectors particularly hard. As those sectors recover, he says, media companies may recover too.
"I am concerned about enacting policy changes based on temporary economic conditions," Schwartzman says. "We don't know what the new normal is."
But whatever the new normal turns out to be, it figures to look very different from the traditional media landscape. That's why some observers are asking whether all the debate over media consolidation may be beside the point, given the huge problems facing the industry.
"Media companies are struggling and the government is standing in their way," says Kenneth Ferree, a former FCC official who pushed to relax the ownership limits under Powell and is now a senior fellow with The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank. "But even if the FCC got rid of the rules, would it matter anyway? That's the $64,000 question."
For decades, the Federal Communications Commission has imposed strict limits preventing any company from controlling too many media properties in the same market. These limits were established to ensure that communities have choices of newspapers and local TV and radio stations.
Congress requires the FCC to take a hard look at the rules every four years to determine whether they still serve the public interest. If they don't, the FCC has to rewrite them.
Now, as the FCC kicks off its latest review, it faces calls to pare the limits because traditional media companies are no longer the almighty players that they were when the ownership rules were first enacted.
Newspaper readers and advertisers have migrated to the Internet, where a lot of content is free and advertising costs less. As a result, newsrooms have shrunk and newspapers have sought bankruptcy protection or shut down. Television broadcasters are suffering too as cable, satellite TV and the Internet splinter audiences and siphon ad dollars - forcing stations to seek new revenue streams and even raising questions about the future of free, over-the-air TV.
Against this backdrop, media companies argue that the FCC's ownership limits no longer make sense and should be relaxed, or even scrapped, so that the companies can get bigger in order to better compete and survive.
"These rules need to fall away," says Jerry Fritz, general counsel for Allbritton Communications, an Arlington, Va., company that owns eight TV stations in seven markets, a cable station in Washington, D.C., and Politico, a successful online and print publication that covers politics. Allbritton is also launching a local news website to cover the Washington region. "The FCC rules make no sense anymore," Fritz says.
But the FCC is unlikely to toss out media ownership restrictions entirely. The agency is also under pressure from public interest groups that support strong limits. Andrew Schwartzman, head of the group Media Access Project, argues that such rules remain critical because democracy relies on a vibrant press with many voices.
These groups have a key ally in Michael Copps, one of the three Democrats on the five-member FCC. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has said little publicly about his views on the existing rules, and his staff has promised a fresh look at the entire media ownership framework. But Genachowski was an architect of the Obama campaign's technology platform, which included a pledge to encourage diversity in media ownership.
Complicating the situation: Even as the FCC launches the 2010 review, the agency still is tied up in a legal battle in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the media ownership reviews of Genachowski's Republican predecessors.
The case goes back to the 2002 review under then-FCC chairman Michael Powell. Powell tried to raise the caps on TV and radio station ownership and relax the so-called "cross-ownership" ban, a rule adopted in 1975 that prohibits common ownership of a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market. (Holdings in some markets, such as Chicago, where Tribune Co. owns WGN radio and TV and the Chicago Tribune, were grandfathered in.)
But Powell's plan drew legal challenges from public interest groups that said he had gone too far and media companies that said he had not gone far enough. So the 3rd Circuit sent the matter back to FCC, telling it to rewrite the rules. And that led Powell's successor, Kevin Martin, to try to ease the cross-ownership ban in the 20 largest media markets. That drew more challenges from both sides.
After Genachowski came to the FCC last year, the agency urged the 3rd Circuit to hold off on considering the case because Martin's rules would soon be superseded by the 2010 review. For a time, the court complied and prevented those rules from going into effect. But in March, the court got tired of waiting for the agency to act and allowed Martin's rules to take force, which could pave the way for cross-ownership deals in the biggest markets. So now, the FCC must decide how to respond in court to the challenges to Martin's actions - even as it launches its own media ownership review.
On both fronts, public interest groups are pushing to roll back Martin's cross-ownership rules and leave the rest of the restrictions in place. Meanwhile, media companies are fighting to lift the cross-ownership ban entirely. They also want some relief from rules that prohibit one company from owning more than one TV station in smaller markets and more than two TV stations in larger markets, including only one of the top four.
Such rules, opponents say, reflect a time when the news business was dominated by just three TV networks and local newspapers - before cable, satellite and the Internet transformed the media, providing outlets for all sorts of viewpoints and voices. Indeed, some of the current ownership rules date in some form to as early as the 1940s. So why, critics ask, should the FCC continue to measure competition by counting broadcast stations and newspapers in individual markets?
"I don't think the average consumer sees the market the way we regulate it," Powell says. "This isn't the way Americans consume media."
Critics also say the rules do more harm than good by artificially inflating the number of media outlets fighting for a limited pool of readers, viewers and advertisers in individual markets. Allowing consolidation, says Harold Furchtgott-Roth, a former Republican FCC commissioner, would let media companies build larger audiences to attract advertisers and spread hefty newsgathering costs by repurposing content across more platforms.
"If we want robust local news, we need to give media companies the opportunity to achieve scale, since producing local news is not cheap," says Rebecca Duke, vice president of distribution for LIN Media, a company based in Providence, R.I., that owns 29 TV stations.
Lifting the rules could help save struggling newspapers or TV stations looking for a buyer, Furchtgott-Roth adds, because often the only potential suitor might be the other major media outlet in town.
One irony not lost on media executives is that the FCC and the Justice Department are expected to approve Comcast Corp.'s proposal to buy a majority stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co. That deal, which would give the nation's largest cable TV operator control of NBC's media empire, would dwarf the types of local media mergers prohibited by the FCC's current rules.
Still, Corie Wright, policy counsel for the public interest group Free Press, insists there is not enough competition in most markets to permit consolidation. Even as cable and the Internet offer many more choices for general news and commentary, most local reporting is still done by newspapers and TV stations, she notes.
Georgetown Law professor Angela Campbell, who represents several public interest groups defending strong ownership limits, fears more consolidation would lead to newsroom layoffs as media companies combine operations and feed the same content to different outlets.
"Every time you have one of these deals, at the end of the day it means one newsroom closes, another lost voice, less local coverage and less diversity of perspective," says FCC Commissioner Copps.
Schwartzman, head of Media Access Project, is also skeptical of the argument that the industry's troubles justify deregulation. After all, he noted, the economy is still emerging from a deep recession that has hit major advertisers in the auto, real estate and retailing sectors particularly hard. As those sectors recover, he says, media companies may recover too.
"I am concerned about enacting policy changes based on temporary economic conditions," Schwartzman says. "We don't know what the new normal is."
But whatever the new normal turns out to be, it figures to look very different from the traditional media landscape. That's why some observers are asking whether all the debate over media consolidation may be beside the point, given the huge problems facing the industry.
"Media companies are struggling and the government is standing in their way," says Kenneth Ferree, a former FCC official who pushed to relax the ownership limits under Powell and is now a senior fellow with The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank. "But even if the FCC got rid of the rules, would it matter anyway? That's the $64,000 question."
Looking at the Media Rules under FCC Review
Associated Press
Congress requires the Federal Communications Commission to review its media ownership rules every four years. The FCC's 2010 review will look at five rules:
- The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. It forbids common ownership of a broadcast television or radio station and a daily newspaper in the same market. However, the rule can be waived in the top 20 metropolitan markets, so long as the TV station is not ranked among the top four and there are at least eight independently owned and operated media outlets.
- The local television ownership limit, commonly called the duopoly rule. It permits an entity to own two TV stations in the same market. But that can happen only if at least one station is not among the top four in terms of audience share and there are at least eight independently owned and operated stations in the market.
- The local radio ownership rule. It permits an entity to own up to eight commercial radio stations in markets with at least 45 stations; up to seven such stations in markets with 30 to 44 stations; up to six stations in markets with 15 to 29; and up to five stations in markets with 14 or fewer.
- The radio/television cross-ownership rule. It lets one entity own up to two TV stations and up to six radio stations in a market with at least 20 independently owned and operated media outlets. Or a company can own up to two television stations and up to four radio stations in a market with at least 10 independently owned and operated media outlets.
- The dual network rule. This prohibits a merger of any of the top four broadcast networks - ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.
- The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. It forbids common ownership of a broadcast television or radio station and a daily newspaper in the same market. However, the rule can be waived in the top 20 metropolitan markets, so long as the TV station is not ranked among the top four and there are at least eight independently owned and operated media outlets.
- The local television ownership limit, commonly called the duopoly rule. It permits an entity to own two TV stations in the same market. But that can happen only if at least one station is not among the top four in terms of audience share and there are at least eight independently owned and operated stations in the market.
- The local radio ownership rule. It permits an entity to own up to eight commercial radio stations in markets with at least 45 stations; up to seven such stations in markets with 30 to 44 stations; up to six stations in markets with 15 to 29; and up to five stations in markets with 14 or fewer.
- The radio/television cross-ownership rule. It lets one entity own up to two TV stations and up to six radio stations in a market with at least 20 independently owned and operated media outlets. Or a company can own up to two television stations and up to four radio stations in a market with at least 10 independently owned and operated media outlets.
- The dual network rule. This prohibits a merger of any of the top four broadcast networks - ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.
09 May 2010
FCC Lets Hollywood Turn Off Your Output Jacks
WIRED
Hollywood will soon have the power to remotely disable the analog outputs on your set-top box, under a decision by federal regulators on Friday intended to prevent home recording of new movie releases.
The move by the Federal Communications Commission grants cable and satellite providers the power to block consumers from viewing just-released movies in an analog format through a process known as Selectable Output Control. Hollywood requested SOC powers as a condition of allowing providers for the first time to release movies to their in-home customers while the film is in theaters.
The Motion Picture Association of America said its member studios would not authorize the early movie releases unless it won the ability to deploy Selectable Output Control. The reason: Analog video signals can easily be recorded, while digital video standards include a copy protection scheme that lets providers set a no-copy flag on the signal.
Digital rights group, Public Knowledge, said millions of older televisions, including 11 million HD sets, would be affected, a number the MPAA disputes. Owners of those devices would not have the luxury of being able to view the latest theater blockbuster at home through video on-demand services.
“The FCC is allowing the MPAA to control your television,” John Bergmayer, Public Knowledge staff attorney, said in a telephone interview.
Howard Gantman, a Motion Picture Association of America vice president, said in a telephone interview that, while some consumers may be left out, “It’s not going to stop you from getting what you get now.”
The FCC said it sided with the MPAA in the name of “public interest,” and granted SOC controls for no longer than 90 days per title.
“We believe that providing consumers with the option to view films in their homes shortly after those films are released in theaters will serve the public interest,” the FCC said in its order. It added that permission to deploy Selectable Output Control “is necessary to provide adequate protection against illegal copying of the proposed service.”
Gantman said it’s now about four months between theater debut to home or DVD release. With Friday’s decision, he said, it was not immediately clear how much shorter that span would become.
Agreements between studios, producers and the cable and satellite providers need to be worked out, he said.
“We’re not breaking anybody’s TVs,” he said.
The move by the Federal Communications Commission grants cable and satellite providers the power to block consumers from viewing just-released movies in an analog format through a process known as Selectable Output Control. Hollywood requested SOC powers as a condition of allowing providers for the first time to release movies to their in-home customers while the film is in theaters.
The Motion Picture Association of America said its member studios would not authorize the early movie releases unless it won the ability to deploy Selectable Output Control. The reason: Analog video signals can easily be recorded, while digital video standards include a copy protection scheme that lets providers set a no-copy flag on the signal.
Digital rights group, Public Knowledge, said millions of older televisions, including 11 million HD sets, would be affected, a number the MPAA disputes. Owners of those devices would not have the luxury of being able to view the latest theater blockbuster at home through video on-demand services.
“The FCC is allowing the MPAA to control your television,” John Bergmayer, Public Knowledge staff attorney, said in a telephone interview.
Howard Gantman, a Motion Picture Association of America vice president, said in a telephone interview that, while some consumers may be left out, “It’s not going to stop you from getting what you get now.”
The FCC said it sided with the MPAA in the name of “public interest,” and granted SOC controls for no longer than 90 days per title.
“We believe that providing consumers with the option to view films in their homes shortly after those films are released in theaters will serve the public interest,” the FCC said in its order. It added that permission to deploy Selectable Output Control “is necessary to provide adequate protection against illegal copying of the proposed service.”
Gantman said it’s now about four months between theater debut to home or DVD release. With Friday’s decision, he said, it was not immediately clear how much shorter that span would become.
Agreements between studios, producers and the cable and satellite providers need to be worked out, he said.
“We’re not breaking anybody’s TVs,” he said.
13 April 2010
FCC Chief Julius Genachowski faces Broadband Dilemma
USA Today
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will soon have to make a wonky but controversial decision that could have a profound impact on how much consumers pay for broadband, how fast their services will be — and possibly whether millions of people will be able to get it at all.
He can ensure that the FCC has the power to set rules for high-speed Internet service if he asks his fellow regulators to define it, in legal terms, as a highly regulated common carrier service like telephones. Or he can let cable and phone companies call the shots by allowing it to remain a lightly regulated information service.
There's no deadline for a decision. But if Genachowski waits too long, he may have to abandon dozens of policy changes that he has proposed to close the digital divide and protect broadband subscribers.
That would mean Genachowski "will have no legacy," says Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, an activist group that favors more broadband oversight.
But if he does act, cable and phone companies likely would "launch an all-out attack" on the FCC leading into this year's congressional elections, "with charges of lost jobs, lost investment, lost (broadband) deployment and more Democratic meddling in industry," says analyst Rebecca Arbogast of Stifel Nicolaus, a financial services firm.
Genachowski ran into this dilemma last week when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a commission decision from 2008 that involved Comcast's management of Internet traffic. Justices said the FCC lacked an explicit mandate to regulate broadband. The agency tied its own hands in 2005 when it defined phone DSL broadband as an information service, similar to a decision it made in 2002 about cable modems.
The court tossed aside the FCC's view that it could infer some power over Internet services from its authority to set rules for cable TV and phone services. The ruling hit just weeks after the FCC unveiled a sweeping proposal, called the National Broadband Plan, designed to make high-speed Internet a staple of everyday life.
Separately, Genachowski and President Obama have said that they want to require Internet providers to treat all Web services equally, a policy known as net neutrality.
Without a change in the law that defines broadband, many of these proposals would have to be scuttled or might end up being "litigated before a skeptical court," Arbogast says.
The FCC won't say whether Genachowski is inclined to reassert regulatory power over broadband by reclassifying it as a common carrier service. But whatever decision he makes will create shock waves.
Rules are 'badly out of date'
If the FCC changes the way it treats high-speed Internet, then "everybody in the industry would sue," says Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, an Internet forum supported by cable and phone companies.
"It would be like an 8.0 earthquake under the sector," he adds. "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested (in broadband) in the belief that there'd be a market rate of return, not a regulated rate."
The FCC's two Republican commissioners have said they'd fight a move to reclassify broadband.
Verizon and AT&T have said that they'd prefer to see Congress clarify the FCC's role and what rules should apply to new players including Google. Laws are "badly out of date," Verizon Executive Vice President Tom Tauke said in a recent speech.
But consumer advocates and others say that Genachowski can't afford to wait. "It would surely take a year or two" to get a major law through Congress, says Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm.
And if an FCC decision to reclassify broadband draws a lawsuit, it makes more sense to have "one big court case instead of a dozen small cases," Schwartzman says.
Genachowski's fellow Democrats on the commission also are eager to act. Michael Copps called reclassification the "only way the commission can make lemonade out of (the Appeals Court's) lemon of a decision."
If Genachowski wants to defuse the issue, he could try to engineer a compromise. For example, he could agree to take broadband reclassification off the table as long as providers make legally binding promises to offer consumer protections called for in the National Broadband Plan and to agree to treat all Web services equally. But it will be hard to please everybody as advocates gear up for a fight.
While reclassification isn't a sexy issue, as the Internet becomes the main pipeline for media and communications and phone DSL broadband, the FCC's rules "will shape everything that people use to interact with the world," Silver says.
He can ensure that the FCC has the power to set rules for high-speed Internet service if he asks his fellow regulators to define it, in legal terms, as a highly regulated common carrier service like telephones. Or he can let cable and phone companies call the shots by allowing it to remain a lightly regulated information service.
There's no deadline for a decision. But if Genachowski waits too long, he may have to abandon dozens of policy changes that he has proposed to close the digital divide and protect broadband subscribers.
That would mean Genachowski "will have no legacy," says Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, an activist group that favors more broadband oversight.
But if he does act, cable and phone companies likely would "launch an all-out attack" on the FCC leading into this year's congressional elections, "with charges of lost jobs, lost investment, lost (broadband) deployment and more Democratic meddling in industry," says analyst Rebecca Arbogast of Stifel Nicolaus, a financial services firm.
Genachowski ran into this dilemma last week when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a commission decision from 2008 that involved Comcast's management of Internet traffic. Justices said the FCC lacked an explicit mandate to regulate broadband. The agency tied its own hands in 2005 when it defined phone DSL broadband as an information service, similar to a decision it made in 2002 about cable modems.
The court tossed aside the FCC's view that it could infer some power over Internet services from its authority to set rules for cable TV and phone services. The ruling hit just weeks after the FCC unveiled a sweeping proposal, called the National Broadband Plan, designed to make high-speed Internet a staple of everyday life.
Separately, Genachowski and President Obama have said that they want to require Internet providers to treat all Web services equally, a policy known as net neutrality.
Without a change in the law that defines broadband, many of these proposals would have to be scuttled or might end up being "litigated before a skeptical court," Arbogast says.
The FCC won't say whether Genachowski is inclined to reassert regulatory power over broadband by reclassifying it as a common carrier service. But whatever decision he makes will create shock waves.
Rules are 'badly out of date'
If the FCC changes the way it treats high-speed Internet, then "everybody in the industry would sue," says Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, an Internet forum supported by cable and phone companies.
"It would be like an 8.0 earthquake under the sector," he adds. "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested (in broadband) in the belief that there'd be a market rate of return, not a regulated rate."
The FCC's two Republican commissioners have said they'd fight a move to reclassify broadband.
Verizon and AT&T have said that they'd prefer to see Congress clarify the FCC's role and what rules should apply to new players including Google. Laws are "badly out of date," Verizon Executive Vice President Tom Tauke said in a recent speech.
But consumer advocates and others say that Genachowski can't afford to wait. "It would surely take a year or two" to get a major law through Congress, says Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm.
And if an FCC decision to reclassify broadband draws a lawsuit, it makes more sense to have "one big court case instead of a dozen small cases," Schwartzman says.
Genachowski's fellow Democrats on the commission also are eager to act. Michael Copps called reclassification the "only way the commission can make lemonade out of (the Appeals Court's) lemon of a decision."
If Genachowski wants to defuse the issue, he could try to engineer a compromise. For example, he could agree to take broadband reclassification off the table as long as providers make legally binding promises to offer consumer protections called for in the National Broadband Plan and to agree to treat all Web services equally. But it will be hard to please everybody as advocates gear up for a fight.
While reclassification isn't a sexy issue, as the Internet becomes the main pipeline for media and communications and phone DSL broadband, the FCC's rules "will shape everything that people use to interact with the world," Silver says.
15 March 2010
Court OKs TV Rules Opposed by Comcast, Cablevision
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal court Friday upheld regulations that require cable TV companies to make sports programming and other channels they own available on equal terms to rival TV providers such as satellite companies.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia leaves in place the Federal Communications Commission "program access" rules, which are intended to ensure that cable companies cannot withhold highly desirable programming that they own from competitors.
The rules require Comcast Corp., for instance, to make channels that it owns - including E! Entertainment, Versus and the Golf Channel - available to rivals such as DirecTV Inc., Dish Network Corp., AT&T Inc.'s U-Verse video service and Verizon's FiOS video service.
The decision was a setback for Cablevision Systems Corp. and Comcast, which were challenging the FCC's decision to extend a ban on exclusive programming contracts for five years.
Comcast has nonetheless pledged to extend the program access rules to the local NBC and Telemundo stations it would control as part of its proposed combination with NBC Universal. Comcast is seeking FCC and Justice Department approval to buy a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co.
Comcast said it was disappointed in Friday's ruling.
"The program access rules are based on an outdated and obsolete view of the competitive landscape," Cablevision said in a statement.
DirecTV and Verizon hailed the ruling as a win for consumers.
"This decision protects consumers' ability to view the programs they demand as they gain new choices among video providers," Verizon said in a statement. The phone company has spent billions on its new FiOS fiber-optic network to deliver video and high-speed Internet services.
The circuit court decision comes amid growing concern in Washington about the rules governing access to both broadcast programming and channels owned by cable companies.
On Sunday, after talks broke down between ABC and Cablevision over the fees the cable company would pay to air the network, the ABC station in New York pulled its signal from Cablevision, causing subscribers to miss the first 15 minutes of the Oscars. A coalition of cable, satellite and phone companies seized on the incident to ask the FCC to prohibit broadcasters from interrupting signals during negotiations or before popular events, and to mandate binding arbitration.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told lawmakers at a hearing Thursday that the FCC would review whether existing federal regulations still make sense.
Friday's ruling is the second key victory for cable rivals in as many months when it comes to program access rules.
In January, the FCC voted to close to the so-called "terrestrial loophole," which lets cable companies get around program access rules by distributing programming over landlines rather than satellite connections.
Comcast, Cablevision and Cox Communications Inc. have relied on the loophole to deny sports programming to competitors such as DirecTV, Dish, AT&T and Verizon.
Genachowski praised Friday's ruling. "The commission's program access rules have played a vital role in making diverse and attractive video programming available to cable and satellite TV viewers," he said in a statement.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia leaves in place the Federal Communications Commission "program access" rules, which are intended to ensure that cable companies cannot withhold highly desirable programming that they own from competitors.
The rules require Comcast Corp., for instance, to make channels that it owns - including E! Entertainment, Versus and the Golf Channel - available to rivals such as DirecTV Inc., Dish Network Corp., AT&T Inc.'s U-Verse video service and Verizon's FiOS video service.
The decision was a setback for Cablevision Systems Corp. and Comcast, which were challenging the FCC's decision to extend a ban on exclusive programming contracts for five years.
Comcast has nonetheless pledged to extend the program access rules to the local NBC and Telemundo stations it would control as part of its proposed combination with NBC Universal. Comcast is seeking FCC and Justice Department approval to buy a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co.
Comcast said it was disappointed in Friday's ruling.
"The program access rules are based on an outdated and obsolete view of the competitive landscape," Cablevision said in a statement.
DirecTV and Verizon hailed the ruling as a win for consumers.
"This decision protects consumers' ability to view the programs they demand as they gain new choices among video providers," Verizon said in a statement. The phone company has spent billions on its new FiOS fiber-optic network to deliver video and high-speed Internet services.
The circuit court decision comes amid growing concern in Washington about the rules governing access to both broadcast programming and channels owned by cable companies.
On Sunday, after talks broke down between ABC and Cablevision over the fees the cable company would pay to air the network, the ABC station in New York pulled its signal from Cablevision, causing subscribers to miss the first 15 minutes of the Oscars. A coalition of cable, satellite and phone companies seized on the incident to ask the FCC to prohibit broadcasters from interrupting signals during negotiations or before popular events, and to mandate binding arbitration.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told lawmakers at a hearing Thursday that the FCC would review whether existing federal regulations still make sense.
Friday's ruling is the second key victory for cable rivals in as many months when it comes to program access rules.
In January, the FCC voted to close to the so-called "terrestrial loophole," which lets cable companies get around program access rules by distributing programming over landlines rather than satellite connections.
Comcast, Cablevision and Cox Communications Inc. have relied on the loophole to deny sports programming to competitors such as DirecTV, Dish, AT&T and Verizon.
Genachowski praised Friday's ruling. "The commission's program access rules have played a vital role in making diverse and attractive video programming available to cable and satellite TV viewers," he said in a statement.
01 March 2010
Fox is Number One. At Indecency Complaints.
ABC News
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Members of the "tea party" don't like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow's use of the word "teabagging."
According to FCC records obtained and analyzed by SNL Kagan, viewers have filed 1,239 indecency complaints connected to the ambiguous phrase. The only thing more controversial was a rant delivered by CNN's Jack Cafferty against China on an April 2008 edition of "The Situation Room."
Of course, NBC and CNN don't even come close to the amount of ire directed at a March 2009 episode of Fox's "Family Guy" in which a baby drank horse semen with his breakfast cereal. That episode generated 188,368 complaints.
Thanks in large part to "Family Guy" and some of its live sports programing, Fox leads all broadcast networks in getting under the skins of Americans. Almost 50% of the top 50 broadcast TV indecency complaints filed at the FCC were directed at Fox.
According to FCC records obtained and analyzed by SNL Kagan, viewers have filed 1,239 indecency complaints connected to the ambiguous phrase. The only thing more controversial was a rant delivered by CNN's Jack Cafferty against China on an April 2008 edition of "The Situation Room."
Of course, NBC and CNN don't even come close to the amount of ire directed at a March 2009 episode of Fox's "Family Guy" in which a baby drank horse semen with his breakfast cereal. That episode generated 188,368 complaints.
Thanks in large part to "Family Guy" and some of its live sports programing, Fox leads all broadcast networks in getting under the skins of Americans. Almost 50% of the top 50 broadcast TV indecency complaints filed at the FCC were directed at Fox.
05 November 2009
Net Neutrality: Two Senators Voice Their Concerns
Opinion: Senators Orrin Hatch and Jim DeMint
from the Wall Street Journal
Chairman Julius Genachowski sees the
need for Internet Regulation
Last week, Chairman Julius Genachowski and his Democratic colleagues on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began rewriting federal regulations governing the Internet and broadband communications. According to Mr. Genachowski, the Internet today is a failed market in which neither entrepreneurs nor consumers are treated fairly.
If this is news to you (especially if you're reading this on a Web site while simultaneously uploading photos to your family blog and streaming music from an online radio station), you're not alone.
The Internet is one of the only aspects of our economy and national life free from government regulation. Mr. Genachowski and his colleagues see this as a bad thing. We disagree.
If there is a perfect encapsulation of the success of Washington's current hands-off approach to the Internet, it's the popular "There's an app for that" advertising campaign. Since the latest introduction of smart phones like Apple's iPhone and Blackberry's Curve, independent software developers have created tens of thousands of applications for mobile devices. There are apps for gamers, bloggers, couch potatoes, foodies, health-care providers and every other niche market you can imagine. These applications have improved people's lives and satisfied consumer demand.
And it has all happened without a Washington politician or bureaucrat moving a muscle.
This isn't a coincidence. If the Internet were invented by a politician or worse, managed by bureaucrats, cell phones would still look like bricks and the information superhighway would still be a dirt road. If there is any sector of our economy where competition is so fierce and where the pace of innovation is so rapid that government interference would only get in the way, it is the Internet and telecommunications market.
The Internet has grown because of a virtuous and mutually beneficial circle: network operators provide ever-increasing speed and bandwidth; content providers one-up each other with game-changing innovations; and consumers adapt and adopt at lightning speed.
Ten years ago, we effectively had no broadband marketplace. Dial-up Internet was common, but not ubiquitous. Consumers had a choice of service providers, but they were typically confined to walled gardens of preselected or preferred content. The broadband revolution led us out of that desert. Instead of dog-paddling, we could surf the net, choosing between broadband service offered by traditional phone and cable companies and, now, wireless companies as well.
Compare that to the last decade of success at government dominated companies like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM or Chrysler.
Yet despite an overwhelming record of innovation, and customer satisfaction, Washington wants to replace the judgment of consumers with that of politicians and bureaucrats.
Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the opposite. Bandwidth is finite—like the finite number of lanes on a highway—and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate the burgeoning traffic. As they invest billions of private dollars in new and improved networks to accomodate demand for such net tools as business VoIP service, they should rightly expect to set prices and manage those networks as they see fit.
If the FCC takes control of the Internet, they will in effect be regulating how consumers use their computers, and we'll have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations: business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions prejudiced by corporations. Keep in mind, we're talking about the most competitive, efficient and consumer-driven industry in the global economy.
Is it reasonable to believe committees of suits in Washington—with hearings and markup meetings and regulatory comment periods—can keep up with the competitive pressures of Google SEO and the Internet economy?
To ask the question is to answer it. There is a time and place for federal economic regulation, but the middle of a recession is not the time, and the Internet is certainly not the place.
If this is news to you (especially if you're reading this on a Web site while simultaneously uploading photos to your family blog and streaming music from an online radio station), you're not alone.
The Internet is one of the only aspects of our economy and national life free from government regulation. Mr. Genachowski and his colleagues see this as a bad thing. We disagree.
If there is a perfect encapsulation of the success of Washington's current hands-off approach to the Internet, it's the popular "There's an app for that" advertising campaign. Since the latest introduction of smart phones like Apple's iPhone and Blackberry's Curve, independent software developers have created tens of thousands of applications for mobile devices. There are apps for gamers, bloggers, couch potatoes, foodies, health-care providers and every other niche market you can imagine. These applications have improved people's lives and satisfied consumer demand.
And it has all happened without a Washington politician or bureaucrat moving a muscle.
This isn't a coincidence. If the Internet were invented by a politician or worse, managed by bureaucrats, cell phones would still look like bricks and the information superhighway would still be a dirt road. If there is any sector of our economy where competition is so fierce and where the pace of innovation is so rapid that government interference would only get in the way, it is the Internet and telecommunications market.
The Internet has grown because of a virtuous and mutually beneficial circle: network operators provide ever-increasing speed and bandwidth; content providers one-up each other with game-changing innovations; and consumers adapt and adopt at lightning speed.
Ten years ago, we effectively had no broadband marketplace. Dial-up Internet was common, but not ubiquitous. Consumers had a choice of service providers, but they were typically confined to walled gardens of preselected or preferred content. The broadband revolution led us out of that desert. Instead of dog-paddling, we could surf the net, choosing between broadband service offered by traditional phone and cable companies and, now, wireless companies as well.
Compare that to the last decade of success at government dominated companies like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM or Chrysler.
Yet despite an overwhelming record of innovation, and customer satisfaction, Washington wants to replace the judgment of consumers with that of politicians and bureaucrats.
Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the opposite. Bandwidth is finite—like the finite number of lanes on a highway—and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate the burgeoning traffic. As they invest billions of private dollars in new and improved networks to accomodate demand for such net tools as business VoIP service, they should rightly expect to set prices and manage those networks as they see fit.
If the FCC takes control of the Internet, they will in effect be regulating how consumers use their computers, and we'll have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations: business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions prejudiced by corporations. Keep in mind, we're talking about the most competitive, efficient and consumer-driven industry in the global economy.
Is it reasonable to believe committees of suits in Washington—with hearings and markup meetings and regulatory comment periods—can keep up with the competitive pressures of Google SEO and the Internet economy?
To ask the question is to answer it. There is a time and place for federal economic regulation, but the middle of a recession is not the time, and the Internet is certainly not the place.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
