U.S. FCC Loosens Media Ownership Limits

Yahoo.com via Reuters ^ | 02 June 2003 | By Jeremy Pelofsky

[Maigrey]

U.S. FCC Loosens Media Ownership Limits

by Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators on Monday narrowly approved sweeping new rules that will allow television broadcasters to expand their reach, despite fears about reducing the diversity of viewpoints.

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) voted 3-2 to allow the broadcast networks to own television stations that reach 45 percent of the U.S. audience, up from 35 percent.

Citing a need to update decades-old rules to reflect new sources of entertainment, information and news via cable television and the Internet, the FCC (news - web sites) also voted to lift a ban that prevents a company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same market -- except in cases involving the smallest markets.

"I have heard the concerns expressed by the public about excessive consolidation," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said ahead of the vote. "They have introduced a note of caution in the choices we have made."

The two Democrats on the FCC opposed relaxing the regulations, arguing that the changes would concentrate ownership in the hands of a few, reduce the diversity of viewpoints and stifle reporting of local news.

"The Federal Communications Commission empowers America's new media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy depend," said Commissioner Michael Copps.

The FCC is required to review media ownership rules every two years, but the revamping follows federal appeals court criticism that the agency had not justified the need for them.

Stocks of some companies affected by the decision rose, including a 3 percent gain in shares of Viacom Inc., which owns the CBS and UPN networks. Clear Channel Communications Inc. shares rose 4.7 percent, despite the radio company's disappointment with the decision.

FCC VOTE PROTESTED

Code Pink, a women's peace group, tried to disrupt the FCC vote singing "Mass deregulation of the mass communication is the end of democracy." They were escorted from the commission meeting room by police.

Media conglomerates had lobbied the FCC to further relax or eliminate the rules, while consumer groups and smaller broadcasters sought strict regulations. Industry experts think the new rules will likely be challenged in the courts.

While some critics expect a rash of media mergers based on the new rules, industry analysts have cautioned investors against expecting a gold rush.

Under the new rules, a company can own two television stations in markets where there are at least five stations, as long as one is not in the top four, based on ratings.

A company would be permitted to own three stations in markets where there are 18 stations, such as Los Angeles.

In markets with nine television stations, a company can own a daily newspaper, a television station and several radio stations. In markets with four to eight television stations, there would be stricter limits on cross ownership.

The FCC kept in place a ban on mergers among the four largest television networks -- ABC owned by Walt Disney Co., CBS, News Corp.'s Fox network, and NBC, run by General Electric.

The FCC also revamped how radio markets are defined to prevent a company from owning all the stations in a town and left intact the maximum number of radio stations a company can own, up to eight in markets where there are 45 radio stations.

(Additional reporting by Peter Kaplan)

[Maigrey]

Are the democrats screaming because they feel a threat to their ideology, or screaming because they have broader range of pseudocontrol?

[enuu]

CNN Blackout? Did someone buy CNN already? For the past half-hour, my CNN and CNN Headlines channels are completely GONE. The channels simply are blank on my TV screen. All other channels are fine. The Cable Company says they don't know what's going on. It's nice that CNN seems to have been suddenly taken off the air, but I'm wondering why? Anyone else have this happening?

[katze]

I'm against it, fearing monopolies, such as Dish and DirecTV merging, as they've been wanting (before Murdoch bought DirecTV).

[Tamzee]

Under the new rules, a company can own two television stations in markets where there are at least five stations, as long as one is not in the top four, based on ratings

Wait a sec... if there are 5 stations and you owned 2 of them, wouldn't one HAVE to be in the top four? What am I missing here? ;-)

[Catspaw]

Code Pink, a women's peace group, tried to disrupt the FCC vote singing "Mass deregulation of the mass communication is the end of democracy." They were escorted from the commission meeting room by police.

Medea Benjamin has added to her rap sheet.

[Pyrion]

Methinks the press actually needs to *gasp* read the release from the FCC before they even consider talking outta their butts.

[jethropalerobber]

Are the democrats screaming because they feel a threat to their ideology, or screaming because they have broader range of pseudocontrol?

i suspect their objections are mostly pragmatic. they suspect (as i do) that media consolidation will result in a more conservative media.

[jethropalerobber]

"Mass deregulation of the mass communication is the end of democracy."

i am interested to hear if anyone has serious arguments against this position.

is any amount of media regulation acceptable?

or is it contradictory to suppose that a government regulated press can ever be a 'free' press?

is a profit driven corporate press any more 'free' in its function?

[Maigrey]

After reading the FCC release, and seeing the limits of ownership per market, it seems a little like they are being pragmatic. I know in the market where I live, people are screaming about Clear Channel Media and their "conservative" influence. Alas, the only daily newspaper, and most of the alphabet soups are quite left leaning in their media reporting. Radio is one bastion of the balance of information.

[jethropalerobber]

Radio is one bastion of the balance of information.

that's cold comfort to me, knowing it could just as easily have happened the other way around.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> is any amount of media regulation acceptable?

A little late to this thread but i'll take a shot.

For a country that supposedly has free press, broadcast media has always been highly regulated. Remember the "fairness dictine"? Was the rule for a long time, but it's gone now and it's hard to imagine it ever coming back.

Now, over the past several years, we have whittled at the onerous regulations that have dictated the number and kind of media outlets an entity is allowd to own. Is there really a reason to have such regulations? I don't think so. The only reason they are there is because, in the early years of broadcasting, people seemed to think it was a good idea, yet there could not have been any evidence at the time to support it, because it had never been tried.

The only regulation we need is licensing to allocate spectrum and protect established users, so when a broadcaster is set up to operate on a particular fewquency in a particular locale and a footprint is established for it's coverage area, nobody else can broadcast a signal that interferes with that.

And believe me, that kind of regulation gives the FCC plenty to do. In this area, a regional outfit bought one of the smaller local FM stations and moved it's transmitting antenna from one of the lower foothills to the highest nearby peak in the Coast Range mountains, ostensibly to provide coverage to Florence, a coastal town which, at the time, had no radio stations (this was about 20 years ago). The move was actually calculated to give them a little more than that. They already owned an AM and an FM in the Eugene market, and while the new station ID'd as being in Florence, their programming and advertising were clearly targeted to Eugene. The problem here is that the new location of the transmitter covers a very wide area, and essentially blocks use of an adjacent frequency anywhere else in Western and Central Oregon. The FCC goofed on this one, other broadcasters cried foul, but it was too late as it had been approved.

That case is interesting because it showed how a broadcaster could circumvent the multiple ownership restrictions that existed at the time, and in doing so cause needless waste of spectrum. Had the broadcaster been allowed to then own a second FM station in the Eugene market, they probably would have kept it in the foothills, and an adjacent channel would have been available for another broadcaster who might have wanted to actually locate in Florence or another nearby town.

Clear Channel now owns that station, along with Eugene's most powerful AM station (50 Kilowatt), three or four lesser FM stations that were similarly moved to higher elevations from the small farm towns they originally served, and the 1.6 Megawatt local NBC affiliate.

And I like it. In this area, before they started buying stations and making them more powerful, there were dead spots where you could get no FM radio at all, but if the FCC had been doing it's job with respect to frequency allocation, it could have been done more efficiently.

Dave in Eugene

[Charge Carrier]

>> is any amount of media regulation acceptable?

"Media regulation" here is simply the right to broadcast, not the content. To speak to the question, well, yes, of course media regulation is acceptable and necessary. This is so as long as the government has enforced its proclaimed right to limit and control what any individual can put into the electromagnetic spectrum that permeates free space, (including that free space that is over my supposedly private property).

As it is now, I cannot start my own radio station without leasing the right to use the electromagnetic space from the government. For any new entrants, the government's policy (except such regulation that is now being "whittled" away at)is to decide who gets space by auctioning it off to the highest bidder. But in the few large metro markets, one has to buy the right from someone else. Despite what some would claim, there is a real physical limit to the number of channels in any spectrum, thereby limiting the ability to transmit, communicate, etc.

Actually setting up and running a small radio transmission tower is not that expensive, but getting the right to do so is and will only continue to get more expensive (just as real estate does.) So deciding the who,how, and why someone gets greater rights than others should be of serious public concern. The extreme example to counter the supposition of no regulation is: would we accept that simply because someone has the ability to buy most all the rights to a market (a physical area) that we would then let them do so?

BTW IMHO - Although the FCC trend is worrisome, it does not seem to seriously impede fundamental ability to obtain broadcast rights to other channels (i.e. for now, there are quite enough channels available at a relatively low price, except in the major metro markets.) The immediate effect in my opinion is to allow an easy way for large media companies to further solidify and expand their holdings in important markets (mainly the lucrative large metros. This I am sure is the true 'motivation' behind the sudden interest by the FCC to deregulate.) The result for consumers will be greater homogenization of choices and more exposure to mass produced marketing campaigns.

The sad fact is that there are so many more important and interesting technological issues (e.g. WiFi standards) the FCC should be dealing with than this essentially useless 'deregulation.' Sad even more so because it is apparent the only reason they are discussing it is because it is of concern only to those looking for the opportunity to leverage and therby increase the value of their existing large media holdings a bit more. And so it is clear that those who decide what should be of concern to the American government are those willing to dump huge amounts of money into Washington to gain access to those with the power to do so. And so the cycle continues...

[liberalnot]

why the dems are screaming is arguable:

1. they don't like the number of stations that clear channel owns, including broadcasts of rush limbaugh.

2. but who allowed clear channel to buy up stations? answer: the 1996 t/c law, signed by none other than bill clinton.

3. the dems don't like murdoch and fox news because it threatens their hold on television--the medium by which most people get their "news".

until recently the dems controlled: nbc-cnn-abc-cbs-pubic tv, npr, hollywood, book publishing and distribution, almost all american newspapers. even newspapers called "republican" have a heavy feminist slant.

talk radio and fox tv threaten the dem hold the american public.

and potentially, hillary's run in 2008 could be shot down!

the internet only counts some 8% of people.