True Tales of the Federal Communications Commission

A federal court has just blocked the media ownership rules that the FCC adopted in the face of so much protest last June. The revised regulations aren't entirely dead, but they won't be put into place unless and until they've survived a "full judicial review."

Comments

[Plutarck]

Well, that does depend on whether or not you can consider some degree of spectrum and frequencies to be private property. On this issue I feel my understanding is entirely too fuzzy to come to any meaningful, confident, informed conclusions, and as such must bide.

[Phil]

If a set of rules that would make it a fait accompli that fewer companies would own more media equals "liberalization," then yes, I'm against it.

[Ron Hardin]

Media should be owned by courts.

[R C Dean]

So, I believe this means that the courts have blocked rules that would liberalize ownership of media companies? Sounds like a defeat for the forces of liberty to me.

[Franklin Harris]

What I want to know is what Roy Moore thinks about this.

[Forbes Tuttle]

Phil: Assuming it were a "fait accompli" that fewer companies own more media, I think most people would be with you. But a cursory look (and we're talking an increase in over the air networks owning affiliates that cover 45%, rather than 35%, of US population) at the history of this liberalization, and we've seen nothing but increases in the number of players. The easy way to view this phenomenon is to recognize that the three original networks (who by definition had 100% of the market) are watched by less than 50% of TV viewers on a nightly basis. This is a regulatory necessity for the networks because their markets are shrinking (Nielsen audience ratings), and eventually, if they cannot grow, consolidation will result due to financial stagnation. With market maturation come business consolidation. See for example: auto, steel, airline, telephone, railroad industries. Why is this form of entertainment so highly regulated? It merely works as a barrier to entry. Look at how successful it has been. Early TV sets had 12 channels (2-13), but other that NYC, Chicago and LA, what cities had any local stations beyond the three networks. Do the math, at less than 50% of 45% penetration, the big three get to split 22.5% of the national market--that's 7.5% market share apiece. Something to be concerned about--not.

[Spysander Looner]

This sort of "property" is so intensely state-created that I don't see how people who want the state's power to be limited to a bare minimum could want to see its limits expanded. If you're looking for the full expression of our "natural" rights, you don't want the unnatural ones expanded at their expense.

[Phil]

But a cursory look (and we're talking an increase in over the air networks owning affiliates that cover 45%, rather than 35%, of US population) at the history of this liberalization, and we've seen nothing but increases in the number of players.

How much of that increase is attributable to former independent over-the-air stations who became affiliates of new networks like FOX and UPN? As an example, 20 years ago, Cleveland had channels 3(NBC), 5(ABC), 8(CBS), 25(PBS) and three independents: 19, 43 and 61. Today, it has no independents: 8 is now FOX, 19 is CBS, 43 is UPN and 61 is Home Shopping Network. On paper, there has been a 40% increase in network over-the-air affiliates in that market. In reality, there are now fewer players in the market, no new stations and no independent stations.

This is a regulatory necessity for the networks because their markets are shrinking (Nielsen audience ratings), and eventually, if they cannot grow, consolidation will result due to financial stagnation.

Sorry, but tough shit. Government doesn't exist to protect the entrenched market shares of businesses. They have no rights to audience share -- they need to compete for it like everyone else. And if they can't do so by offering better programming over their networks, they don't get to go crying to the government to be allowed to buy up more stations.

Why is this form of entertainment so highly regulated? It merely works as a barrier to entry.

The barrier to entry is that the FCC has made it prohibitively expensive for new players to enter the game over the years, through the process of creating artificial scarcities. How do they do that? By allowing the big boys to gobble up stations and by misguided signal-protection schemes that make it impossible to fit new stations into the bandwidth.