FCC Must Fiercely Protect Last Media Ownership Limits
Posted May 19th, 2010 by Josh Stearns
This Friday, at Stanford University, the Federal Communications Commission will hold its latest in a series of hearings on the laws that control how much Big Media can continue to expand. The FCC is required to review its media ownership limits every few years to determine if the rules continue to serve the public interest by promoting competition and diverse sources of local news and information.
The theme of Friday’s workshop is innovation, and will feature academics, public interest groups, online entrepreneurs and industry representatives discussing whether ownership restrictions still make sense. More specifically, why, in the age of the boundless Internet, should anyone care if one company dominates the major media platforms in a local community?
With the Comcast-NBC merger looming over the Bay Area, we don’t have to look far to see why limitations on how much media a single company can control remain vital to an informed society and democratic values.
This merger would have dangerous consequences for news and information in communities across the country. If the merger is approved, in the Bay Area Comcast would control two local broadcast stations and the local news produced by and aired on those stations. It will control the national broadcast news aired on the NBC network. It will control NBC’s cable news channels, MSNBC and CNBC, as well as a host of cable entertainment channels. Comcast will control all the websites associated with those channels, as well as other online media platforms. And, it will control how residents access that content because it will be the dominant cable television provider in the Bay Area, as well as the dominant Internet access provider. That means one company will decide what residents in the city can watch, and how they can watch it.
In short, Comcast will control nearly a quarter of all the television viewing hours in this market, as well as access to the three major platforms people use to view that content. That seems like an awful lot of power in the hands of single company. So much so, you would think there’d be a rule against it.
In fact, there was.
Lost media protections
From 1970 to 2002, the FCC had a rule (known as the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, or the CBCO) that prohibited common ownership of cable operations and a broadcast station in the same market. The rationale behind the prohibition was that cable functions as the “gatekeeper” of video programming in local markets, and this gives cable operators the incentive and the means to discriminate against their competitors, and in favor of their own broadcast affiliates.
In 2000, following the FCC’s first review of its media ownership rules, the agency decided to retain the rule, finding that it served the public interest by promoting “competition and diversity and prevent[ing] unfair discrimination.”
The industry sued the FCC for retaining the CBCO rule. Then, in the middle of the litigation, there was a presidential election. The FCC changed political hands. The new administration was no longer favorably inclined toward the CBCO rule and put up a feeble defense in court. In other words, the FCC “took a dive.” As a consequence, the court threw out the rule and industry groups won the ability to takeover media marketplaces like never before.
The loss of the CBCO rule is water under the bridge – we will most likely never get it back. But as we go into the hearing this Friday, the CBCO debacle should serve as a lesson to the FCC for why standing media ownership rules matter, and why they should be fiercely protected.
Media ownership rules matter
While the FCC will review the Comcast/NBC merger and has an opportunity to block it, there is still danger that the agency might approve the deal. However, if the CBCO rule had not been junked, the merger would not have been allowed. Now, other media ownership rules are on the chopping block and are in danger of substantial relaxation or even repeal. What new media mergers will be contemplated if these rules go the way of the CBCO limit?
Suggesting that diverse ownership of traditional broadcast and print sources is irrelevant given the rise of the Internet is a dubious proposition. The legacy broadcast and print media continue to be the primary producers and providers of local news programming. Indeed, a substantial share of the original news content available online comprises stories that appeared in newspapers or broadcast news reports.
The Internet offers the promise of an amazing new interactive access point for information — but it is not a panacea for what all that ails the media industry. Those who are waiting for the “illimitable” Internet to replace or rectify the consolidation of the traditional media will be waiting a very long time. This is made all the more clear by the fact the FCC is poised to review a merger between a news icon and a cable and Internet giant. Allowing the consolidation of substantial control over both content and internet access in one company does not bode well for a healthy flow of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.
Opposing media consolidation
The previous administration saw the media ownership rules as a business obstacle rather than a resource for public protection, and it treated them accordingly. Conversely, President Obama has run on a platform opposing media consolidation.
For the future of news and information, we can only hope that his FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, also shares those principles.
And for communities like San Francisco, we can hope that they start by opposing the Comcast-NBC merger.
Hed: FCC Must Fiercely Protect Last Media Ownership Limits[JE1]
This Friday, at Stanford University, the Federal Communications Commission will hold its latest in a series of hearings[3] on the laws that control how much Big Media can continue to expand. The FCC is required to review its media ownership limits every few years. [JE4]
The theme of Friday’s workshop is innovation, and will feature academics, public interest groups, online entrepreneurs and industry representatives discussing whether ownership restrictions still make sense. More specifically, why, in the age of the boundless Internet, should anyone care if one company dominates the major media platforms in a local community?
With the Comcast-NBC merger looming over the Bay Area, we don’t have to look far to see why limitations on how much media a single company can control remain vital to an informed society and democratic values.
This merger would have dangerous consequences for news and information in communities across the country. If the merger is approved, in the Bay Area Comcast would control two local broadcast stations and the local news produced by and aired on those stations. It will control the national broadcast news aired on the NBC network. It will control NBC’s cable news channels, MSNBC and CNBC, as well as a host of cable entertainment channels. Comcast will control all the websites associated with those channels, as well as other online media platforms. And, it will control how residents access that content because it will be the dominant cable television provider in the Bay Area, as well as the dominant Internet access provider. That means one company will decide what residents in the city can watch, and how they can watch it.
In short, Comcast will control nearly a quarter of all the television viewing hours in this market, as well as access to the three major platforms people use to view that content. That seems like an awful lot of power in the hands of single company. So much so, you would think there’d be a rule against it.
In fact, there was.
Lost media protections
From 1970 to 2002, the FCC had a rule (known as the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, or the CBCO) that prohibited common ownership of cable operations and a broadcast station in the same market. The rationale behind the prohibition was that cable functions as the “gatekeeper” of video programming in local markets, and this gives cable operators the incentive and the means to discriminate against their competitors, and in favor of their own broadcast affiliates.
In 2000, following the FCC’s first review of its media ownership rules, the agency decided to retain the rule, finding that it served the public interest by promoting “competition and diversity and prevent[ing] unfair discrimination.”
The industry sued the FCC for retaining the CBCO rule. Then, in the middle of the litigation, there was a presidential election. The FCC changed political hands. The new administration was no longer favorably inclined toward the CBCO rule and put up a feeble defense in court. In other words, the FCC “took a dive.” As a consequence, the court threw out the rule and industry groups won the ability to takeover media marketplaces like never before.
The loss of the CBCO rule is water under the bridge – we will most likely never get it back. But as we go into the hearing this Friday, the CBCO debacle should serve as a lesson to the FCC for why standing media ownership rules matter, and why they should be fiercely protected.
Media ownership rules matter
While the FCC will review the Comcast/NBC merger and has an opportunity to block it, there is still danger that the agency might approve the deal. However, if the CBCO rule had not been junked, the merger would not have been allowed. Now, other media ownership rules are on the chopping block and are in danger of substantial relaxation or even repeal. What new media mergers will be contemplated if these rules go the way of the CBCO limit?
Legacy media still matters
Suggesting that diverse ownership of traditional broadcast and print sources is irrelevant given the rise of the Internet is a dubious proposition. The legacy broadcast and print media continue to be the primary producers and providers of local news programming. Indeed, a substantial share of the original news content available online comprises stories that appeared in newspapers or broadcast news reports.
The Internet offers the promise of an amazing new interactive access point for information — but it is not a panacea for what all that ails the media industry. Those who are waiting for the “illimitable” Internet to replace or rectify the consolidation of the traditional media will be waiting a very long time. This is made all the more clear by the fact the FCC is poised to review a merger between a news icon and a cable and Internet giant. Allowing the consolidation of substantial control over both content and internet access in one company does not bode well for a healthy flow of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.
Elections matter
The previous administration saw the media ownership rules as a business obstacle rather than a resource for public protection, and it treated them accordingly. Conversely, President Obama has run on a platform opposing media consolidation.
For the future of news and information, we can only hope that his FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, also shares those principles.
And for communities like San Francisco, we can hope that they start by opposing the Comcast-NBC merger. [MT5]
