Ars Technica – 10/25/06:

During its last quadrennial review of broadcast ownership rules, the FCC voted for less regulation of US media companies, only to be smacked down by a court decision in Prometheus v. FCC. That case sent the FCC back to the proverbial drawing board, and the agency has sought a new round of comments on media ownership. Many of those comments were filed on Monday (the day that public comments ended), and they make one thing perfectly clear: big media companies have not given up on the dream of major deregulation.

At issue are current FCC regulations that generally prohibit cross-ownership of a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market and prohibit the ownership of too many radio stations and TV stations in the same market.

CBS puts it most strongly what it says that failing to give broadcasters the “fundamental freedom to compete” means that “we put at risk the rich American tradition of free, over-the-air broadcasting.” That’s right—CBS is saying that not allowing massive conglomerates to own even more pieces of the media could kill off free television.

Not surprisingly, these assertions are controversial. Michael Copps, one of the two Democratic Commissioners at the FCC, gave a recent talk in which he called on consumers across the country to get involved in the process. Copps pointed out how important citizen comments were to the last round of rule-making. “Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land,” he said. “They sent nearly 3 million protests to the Federal Communications Commission.



  1. SN says:

    “This is why I listen to Old time Radio and watch very little television at all…”

    The free market at work! Broadcasters have to consolidate in order to drive their viewers and listeners away!

  2. tom j says:

    It is true, old time radio as heard on the Internet today is more lively.

    I agree with Bruce, part of it then was that is was new. People are no longer messing with TV and radio “they” have it figured out. “They” deliver a formula in a routine manner.

    This should be a time of vast local experiment with radio and tv as digital gear and the Internet provide new and cheaper ways to produce shows and news and sports. But media consolidation is the economic trend. Go figure.

    They question is one that John Dvorak raised a while back where are the Beetovens? We could ask where are the Jack Bennys of today? Only the Shadow knows!

    There is a little good stuff now out there, it tends to be in styles that media giantism would never come up with. Something like the fake news of John Stewart’s Daily show.

  3. Dale says:

    I don’t know how it is for other areas, but our cable system already has quite a bit of “overlap”.

    For some reason, and I can’t quite figure this out, but we have about three or four stations that are almost exactly the same. One comes from Philadelphia, the other comes from New York, and they both call themselves The CW (used to be The WB)… or “My” something… whatever they want to call themselves this week, and except for an hour or so of difference, they show pretty much the exact same content, at least until the news comes on and then you get a bit of local flavor thrown in. As if that’s not enough, we also have our “local” WB/CW/MyThing that, yep, plays the same shows. And the best part? They actually acknowledge the fact that they have overlap by blacking out 2 or 3 of these channels during programs already running on the other channels. So, for example, if Gilmore Girls is running on channel 9, channel 11 goes blank. How no one sees this is as useless and redundant is beyond me.

    Then again, I’ve been trying to figure out why we have 3 local news stations. The local flavor of ABC, CBS, and NBC all have their own news stations and they actually duke it out from time to time on who’s better at reporting the same exact story. There was a bad accident once and one of the stations actually advertised the fact that they were at the scene first, on air, while giving the news. “Look! people were killed, and don’t forget, we were there first! HA!” The best part is when something major like that happens and you see all three stations at the same scene, reporting the same breaking news. It’s cool because you can see which channel has a clearer broadcast, is using better equipment, or who stutters more when trying to come up with ideas on why the crazy loner who keeps to himself suddenly began brandishing an axe and lopping folks’ heads off. It’s kind of like a drinking game… take a shot everytime you see a microphone from the competing news channel in someone’s face.
    And then Fox, who has no local news, simply timeshifts ABCs local station by rerunning their broadcast an hour later and calling that a “service”.

    Should I mention the two local “local” channels? Because “the big three” usually don’t venture into our town unless something really big happens (or unless one of the other channels shows up and they feel they should be there to “represent”), we actually have two stations that cover what’s happening around here. In some cases, one of these two channels does little more than pick up a newspaper and read the stories like they were talking about breaking news that they covered themselves. Sometimes, they’re even word for word copies. One of my friend’s was in an accident and they spelled his name wrong in the paper; on the air, the newscaster said his name exactly as it was spelled. We laughed about that one for a whlie.

    And then finally, and this is the best idea ever, the local ABC news station has actually seen fit to begin rerunning their entire broadcast day on yet another channel. So, for like 24 hours, you can see every broadcast news moment throughout the day in a little window next to advertisements and the weather forecasts.

    So, long story short, TV around here sucks and I’m guessing it’s not much better elsewhere.

  4. Cognito says:

    Far as I can see there are 3 business models for broadcasting

    1/ Here in the UK we pay to watch (the BBC) – Personally I don’t mind it keeps the commercial stations honest and it feels more like a subscription than a tax, but then I find enough to enjoy.

    2/ Most of the rest of the world and non-BBC stations in the UK advertisers pay for the audience gathered by the broadcast

    3/ Non terrestrial broadcasters (like Sky and some cable channels) Make the audience pay for watching programs and then charge advertisers for the audience that has paid to watch.

    With technology making it easier and easier to skip adverts model 2 simply won’t work any longer and model 3 will become less lucrative. Subscription may be the way to go.

  5. James Hill says:

    The issue here is that growth in television and radio is over, and the only way to increase revenue are mergers that reduce overhead.

    A subscription model would only show how much greed the broadcasters have.

    Currently in the US the only true example we have of this is satellite radio, which is still at the operating-loss stage of its growth forcast, despite being a billion dollar industry.

  6. Mike Voice says:

    6 A subscription model would only show how much greed the broadcasters have.

    And I’ve been hearing the local [Portland, OR] ads for “HD Radio” during my commute.

    Claims to be better quality – as if that would matter in the econo-box I commute in – “without the subscription fees”.

  7. OmarTheAlien says:

    DirecTV charges a subscription, then makes you watch substandard content, along with the commercials. Before you can add “premium” channels (read: no commercials), you have to subscribe to the basic package, the before mentioned substandard content. Not worth the time and/or money.

    I think entertainment is moving away from the few to many concept, and is gradually evolving towards the few to few model, where niche artists perform to small but loyal followings. The delivery media? The Internet, of course. There will always be so-called superstars, as the big studios need their cash cows, and will milk them on and on. But the day of the ad supported web site is upon us, where the content is free, but you might have to view a view ads. The succesfull webmasters will be the ones who design sites with interesting content, that keep the people coming back, and who can maintain a tight control over the ad masters, keeping the ads from becoming too “in your face”.

  8. moss says:

    “makes you watch”? Only if you choose to subscribe and accept their business model.

    Of course, in the land of the free, it might be nice if we had the choice that many other nations have of genuine broadband, HDTV capable. I’m not especially satisfied — even with webcasts as interesting as Cranky Geeks, dl.tv, Command-N — when I can only get my V-O-D fix in the equivalent of standard def. Only Leo’s MacBreak arrives in HD.

  9. jccalhoun says:

    I love how the FCC says that they can regulate vulgarity on broadcast TV because the airwaves belong to the public. But at the same time, they allow the airwaves to be run by 4 different companies which prevents the public from utilizing them. That’s good thinking there boys….

    I can’t imagine that anyone who turns on the radio and finds that all the stations are basically the same in any given town or city can say that media consolidation is good for anyone except companies who own the media.

    Check out Who Owns What http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/
    and of course the totally biased http://www.stopbigmedia.com/

  10. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #4 – Dale wrote: “The local flavor of ABC, CBS, and NBC all have their own news stations and they actually duke it out from time to time on who’s better at reporting the same exact story.

    I’d go a step further and say that “reporting” is not a word that belongs there. What are they reporting? Car crashes? A rash of missing cats? Where are the in depth reports concerning the city budget dispute? What about the negative effect the latest zoning changes will have on the community of korean immagrants that live in Neighborhood X?

    If it bleeds it leeds is BAD policy for local news, because all politics are local and for citizens to be involved in their community they need to be informed about their community…

    And don’t get me started on Fire Safety Week (which seems to be every 9 weeks). Be sure to check your batteries in your smoke detector, and if you need a smoke detector, they are available at Mr. Hooper’s Grocery Store on Maple Valley Road.” When product placement and embedded advertising in integrated into the “news” it invalidates the credibility of the entire process.

    How extreme right wingers feel about CNN is how I feel about local news in virtually every market I’ve ever seen it in. I have zero respect for what they do.

  11. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    Note to self – close italics 🙁

    Sorry…

  12. Mike Voice says:

    12 Note to self – close italics

    Yeah. Been there. I’m overdue for another visit… Too funny if it winds-up being in this post! 🙂

    8. But the day of the ad supported web site is upon us, where the content is free, but you might have to view a view ads.

    But, they’ve been training me to quickly scan-and-dismiss ads for years, now.

    I’m continually surprised that ads – and spam – provide a worthwhile return on the money spent.

    And, I’ve been in a “heated” PC Mag forum discussion regarding one site [they used to have an online column at PC Mag] asking visitors to click an ad, or two, each visit… and then try to publicly defend – in the forums – why they should be taking an advertiser’s money for “sympathy clicks”…

  13. Todd says:

    .. current FCC regulations that generally prohibit cross-ownership of a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market…

    Well, there are a limited number of broadcast frequencies so the FCC might have some justification for trying to discourage large companies from monopolizing the airwaves. But newspapers?!? Last time I checked the public doesn’t own the presses or the newspaper distribution systems…

    That’s right—CBS is saying that not allowing massive conglomerates to own even more pieces of the media could kill off free television.

    According to the latest JD Power study (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006135) , 88% of american households have cable or satellite or both. Let free television die — the vast majority of us won’t even notice. We’ve already decided we prefer to pay to get our TV fix.

  14. Improbus says:

    Todd, I would like to introduce you to the tag. It is the cure for overly long URLs.

  15. doug says:

    the only use of old-network TV is to provide content for DVDs to get from NetFlix. (ie “Lost”)

    Just about everything else I watch is on HBO, Comedy Central or SciFi.

  16. jccalhoun says:

    Let free television die — the vast majority of us won’t even notice. We’ve already decided we prefer to pay to get our TV fix.
    personally, the reason why I don’t watch free tv very much is that it sucks. Something I attribute to media consolidation. When I was a kid in the late 70s and early 80s we didn’t have cable (I didn’t have cable until 93 when the college dorm implemented it. my parents didn’t get a satellite until even later than that). However, there was always something on because there were independent channels around. I happened to grow up halfway between Indianapolis and Cincinnati and we could get channels from both cities as well as Louisville and Dayton. There was something on every channel from 2 through 14 and plenty of UHF channels. They all had something different because they weren’t full of talk shows and infomercials.
    Now those independent channels are Fox or CW or whatever and the other network channels all just show Maury or Judge Judy all day. Maybe if the channels weren’t all owned by the same handful of corporations, then there might be less of a need for cable or satellite tv.

  17. joshua says:

    This confuses me. The largest newspaper in Arizona, The Arizona Republic was until a couple years ago owned by Knight-Ridder, who also happened to own the local NBC affiliate. If they can’t have both owned by 1 company, how did they do that?

  18. John Paradox says:

    This confuses me. The largest newspaper in Arizona, The Arizona Republic was until a couple years ago owned by Knight-Ridder, who also happened to own the local NBC affiliate. If they can’t have both owned by 1 company, how did they do that?

    Because they CAN cross-own. I’ve been working since the late 70’s in local radio, and took Broadcast Law in my RTV minor (there was no major at the time). The FCC has loosened requirements, which has been the case for some time now. Check out the ownership of most local radio stations, in Tucson, there’s one owner that has about 7 stations, which would NOT have been the case when I was taking the class.
    Plus, there was the deletion of the Fairness Doctrine (just waiting to see the Neocon apologists call it the “Hush Rush Bill” – despite his initial popularity occurred when it was still in force via the FCC), which led to such as Faux News, etc.

    J/P=?

  19. Frank Rizzo says:

    Commercial Radio? Why bother?

    The internet allows everyone to hear great independent artists perform. Check out sites like cdbaby.com wholewheatradio.org and folkalley.com. One can hear fantastic playing from non-RIAA artists. One will never be bored.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 11576 access attempts in the last 7 days.