If You Can't Beat 'Em, Regulate the Hell Out of 'Em
Now that the Justice Department has handed defeat to the National Association of Broadcaster's high-profile (but laughable) campaign against the XM-Sirius satellite radio merger, they're taking a new tack: regulate away satellite's advantages.
Clear Channel is asking the FCC to slap a series of regulations on satellite radio before approving the merger, including requiring XM-Sirius to abide by FCC decency regulations, banning any local broadcasting or advertising (both companies currently offer traffic and weather for large metropolitan areas), minimum public interest programming requirements, and—somewhat surprisingly—licensure for a competing satellite provider.
I actually agree with the last one. I've never understood why the federal government only allowed for two satellite radio providers in the first place.
The other requirements are ridiculous. Whatever you think of FCC decency regulations, satellite radio is a subscription service. Customers pay for what they're getting. You can also easily block objectionable material. As for barring local programming, I'm intrigued to see how Clear Channel plans to argue that limiting competition to terrestrial radio's local coverage would in any way benefit consumers.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What does this mean, Balko?
“I actually agree with the last one. I’ve never understood why the federal government only allowed for two satellite radio providers in the first place.“
Now that the Justice Department has handed defeat to the National Association of Broadcaster’s high-profile (but laughable) campaign against the XM-Sirius satellite radio merger, they’re taking a new tact
The last word in that sentence should be “tack.”
Fifteen years or so ago, the FCC granted only two spectrum licenses for satellite radio. XM and Sirius won them. If memory serves, it was lobbying from NAB that persuaded the agency to limit the number of licenses to two. The amount of spectrum available for satellite radio is virtually limitless. We could well have had a dozen or more providers if the government had allowed it–which would have meant more competition, more business models, and probably a faster route to profitability.
mp: Thanks. Fixed.
including requiring XM-Sirius to abide by FCC decency regulations
They’d have a hard time explaining why this is OK but they don’t (can’t, theoretically) regulate cable TV. Well, I guess it’s a bandwith thing, but still, it’s a for-pay service.
I admit to being skeptical that media consolidation is just peachy, but I also believe that the solution is to allow more competition rather than put the regulators and the monopolists in a room where they can strike a deal. Radley is exactly right in saying that the most useful part of this ruling is the decision to allow more satellite radio licenses.
Waaah! My revenues are dropping! Waaah! My content is bland! Waaah! Make the big bad competitor go away! Waaah!
God I hate clear channel, thanks for reminding me why. I got satellite radio to get away from those cookie cutter ad-flogging shit-stains in the first place. The un-censored media is just icing on the cake.
I admit to being skeptical that media consolidation is just peachy
*wipes a tear, a tear of pride*
Holy rent seeking, Batman! Clear Channel, a large, established and profitable corporation is asking the govenment to hobble their upstart competition. I’m, to say the least, unsurprised.
Cue some idiot to explain how the government protects us from monopolies.
I don’t understand how Clear Channel can “ask” the FCC anything. I can understand why you might want input from other folks playing a similar game, but the minute they start wanting concessions like that, you’ve got to be extremely suspicious. It would be nice if those making the rules would err on the side of the free market. I guess asking regulators to show some restraint of their power and stick to some sort of principle is just too much! I think it also goes to show you that the regulators are probably not that knowledgeable about the medium, at least as long as I don’t get to thinking about the possibility that it’s a completely corrupted process.
Interesting that Clear Channel (and presumably by extension the NAB) is trying to stop satellite radio from offering local fare, while Congressman Ed Markey is saying we need to gum up the works on the merger until satellite radio offers up more local fare (among other conditions).
I had assumed Markey’s desire to throw up roadblocks to this merger was because he was getting greased by the NAB. Either he is not, or they need to get their talking points coordinated.
The amount of spectrum available for satellite radio is virtually limitless. We could well have had a dozen or more providers if the government had allowed it–which would have meant more competition, more business models, and probably a faster route to profitability.
Hmm. I’m not sure about that “probably.” It may be that competition from free terrestrial broadcasters would always mean that, in the short term, the optimal sized market for satellite providers would be one. (Just as Iridium showed that even one satellite phone provider couldn’t make a profit.) Terrestrial radio does compete with satellite radio.
If the two FCC-approved satellite broadcasters were making money hand over fist, then yes, it would seem obviously to me like a case of them benefiting from the FCC limiting the number of broadcasters and granting them an duopoly. But it’s the terrestrial outfits, not Sirius/XM making the money.
I agree that the FCC shouldn’t limit the number of broadcasters (beyond certain technical limits about spectrum that have not been reached), but the argument that “satellite radio would be more profitable if only they weren’t a monopoly” seems unlikely to me. It seems rather more likely to me that the NAB wanting a second satellite radio outfit indicates that satellite competition would make the XM/Sirius combination less profitable, not more profitable, independent of whether that competition would be a good thing.
Color me unflapped as well. I hope like hell the FCC fuck us all, but why stop now. The FCC is the most obscene agency in all mainstream media. Stick that in your irony pipe and smoke it. Ron Paul might have done better demanding an end to the FCC than the Fed.
I hope like hell the FCC doesn’t fuck us all
*grumble grumble
Anti-trust laws raison d’etre is not to limit access to the cheapest competitor…
Those rules about how many stations so and so can own might have been justified with anti-trust language but its all about politics. Nobody gives a rats ass about how many stations a guy owns if all he does is play seinfeld reruns.
Anti-trust is actually a pretty interesting and generally aims towards making sure prices are determined by how much people are willing to pay for a product, not how much they will pay if they don’t have any other option. It’s not a half bad area of the law and it has a much worse rep with libertarians than it really deserves. If it weren’t for anti-trust laws it’d be pretty difficult to make arguments that the market is fair with a straight face. You’d have a lot more of this kind of stuff like Clear Channel trying to screw sattelite radio rather than bother with broadcasting a signal with a bit of originality in it.
I wish ClearChannel would ask the FCC to relax regulation on themselves rather than add new regulation to satellite radio.
Wow, your really puzzled about why they only allowed two licenses? have you checked the content of these two networks?
the political talk is made up of big government-Wilsonian-Teddy Roosevely-war-police state worship set off against marxist “we are going to take from you to help the common good and impeachment is off the table” channels.
The channels are paired up like WWF matches and the backers are all clearly tracked back to established CFR members.
I admit to finding the broader choices in music, sports and comedy channels an improvement, but it is clear that the government/business monopolies collaborate to limit competition. You really wonder about this fact?
And in other news, ClearChannel is evil:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,95779.0.html#top
I admit to being skeptical that media consolidation is just peachy
— *wipes a tear, a tear of pride*
— — Ah, remember those halcyon days, when thoreau was for media consolidation?
Oh yes, I recall. “Thoreau the Monopolist” we all used to call him back then.
That’s back when I wore a top hat and monocle and ate poor Irish babies (with a side of coal miner’s daughter kidney) for lunch.
tarran – do you have any sources that you would be willing to share? I’m particularly interested in what you said about anti-trust occurring initially during the growth of railroads. I read a paper concerning that time, specifically in regards to the anti-competitive practices of certain rail companies, but haven’t been able to find it in ages.
including requiring XM-Sirius to abide by FCC decency regulations,
That would negate some of the allure of satellite radio, to Clear Channel’s advantage.
banning any local broadcasting or advertising (both companies currently offer traffic and weather for large metropolitan areas)
Clearly Clear Channel doesn’t want the competition for local interest broadcasting.
minimum public interest programming requirements
I’m sure some of the content already on satellite radio would meet minimal requirements.
licensure for a competing satellite provider.
Sure. The FCC should license anyone who wants to provide a competing service.
I admit to being skeptical that media consolidation is just peachy,
What media consolidation?
Ah, remember those halcyon days, when thoreau was for media consolidation?
Well, I stand corrected, gry. I see that you were there last time T. decried media consolidation, but that I was not a-“board” yet back in late ’03:
https://www.reason.com/blog/show/103653.html
I was busy moving to Canada right then. It was my third day in the drug den. Ahhh, bad times. Anyway, T.’s analysis back then is defo worth revisiting. Specifically, he was considering a thesis (that he attributed to one Kevin Carson) that government regulation was the cause of media consolidation, which he admitted was bad. Of course, here the consolidation is problematic largely because of the just-two-licenses problem, and it looks like the Kevin Carson thesis is useful to help explain the problem. So, good for 2003style T.!!!
My own read is that government only gave out two licenses because the rich part of the private sector has trained them not to be vigilant about consolidation, over time and thru think tanks and other lobbying. I mean, Mr. Balko’s position is pretty tenuous here:
– having only two competitors is bad because the government set up that arrangement; but
– having only one competitor is good because the private sector wants that in some sense.
The real deal is that there should be as many licenses as the bandwidth will allow and none of them should be allowed to merge, ever.
Ohhh, you guys mean the media consolidation that’s taking place because consumers have so much choice of varied media now, that some media is consolidating to try to buttress themselves agains the wide array of ever-increasing choices we now have.
Check.
In 2003 I was eating Irish babies with a corn syrup glaze, Dave.
To make it even worse, before cooking them I would fatten the Irish babies with corn syrup.
In 2003 I was . . .
was that when you were a big John Mcain fan or do I have my years mixed up?
John McCain was a 2000 fad for me, Dave. 2003 was all about the corn syrup and Irish babies.
Fuck the FCC!
They’d have a hard time explaining why this is OK but they don’t (can’t, theoretically) regulate cable TV.
You don’t get how the minds of Our Masters work.
First, as the price of approving the merger, they get XM/Sirius to agree to FCC oversight.
Then, they say “It makes no sense for us to have the authority to oversee the content of satellite radio without having the authority to oversee the content of satellite/cable TV.”
tarran | March 25, 2008, 3:39pm | #
Note that the anti-trust law always kicks in when one guy is dominating the market because they are actually charging far lower prices than any competitor can charge.
This was the case for Standard Oil, Alcoa, IBM and Microsoft.
That’s not exactly true. For example, Linux is free, yet Microsoft was hit with anti-trust charges due to their operating system anyways.
What is a problem is bundling. That is, everybody buys x, so the company that makes x throws in y for cheap or free, thereby preventing anybody who wants to just sell y from being able to do so. That was the case for Microsoft and for IBM (browsers and media players in Microsoft’s case, bundling software and services with hardware in IBM’s). If everybody didn’t buy x in the first place, the ability to give away y wouldn’t exist.
Now, sometimes it is the case. If you have one old, big firm that has billions in the bank that sells x, and a bunch of new, little firms also sell x, and the costs per unit sold between the big firm and the little firm are the same, the big firm can simply decide to lose money on every x they sell until all the little firms are forced to go out of business. This works best when there are seperate markets that the big firm plays in; that is, it lowers prices in areas with competitors and raises them in areas without competitors until it no longer has any competitors, then it raises prices everywhere to a level much higher than what the price would be if there was a lot of competitors.
Geotpf,
Don’t want to turn this into a microsoft hate thread, but the ‘bundling’ concept is a theory. Linux is free, and still being produced and supported. Microsoft hasn’t “bundled” Linux yet.
The software industry is going through many of the same issues that occurred during the industrial revolution. We don’t have a company that produces nails, another that produces #8 screws, another that produces lag-bolts, etc. Sometimes it’s cheaper for one company to churn out all the doo-dads due to economies of scale. The software industry is very similar in a way. Not perfectly symmetrical, but analogies can be drawn.
It’s difficult for a programmer to spend zillions of hours on say, a media player and sell it as a unique product, support it, provide updates, keep it compatible with the O/S and every patch and version of said O/S. The media player is basically a #8 screw. Netscape discovered this about the browser. I still giggle everytime I see the term “Browser wars”. Who gives a shit what browser you use? With all the smugness that someone projects when they say “I use firefox”, you’d think that their entire computing experience was somehow more enlightened because of it. Fine, cool. You use that #8 screw, I get by with the #6 but have to use a couple more of them.
The future of the O/S– nay computing, is far more conceptual and service oriented, and less tied to doo-dads. Why do you think MS is very, very nervous about Google? Because google could render the O/S irrelevant. Microsoft Windows could end up as the next #8 screw of the computing world. Or maybe better said, Microsoft could end up the Netscape of the OS world.
J sub D | March 25, 2008, 2:42pm | #
…
Cue some idiot to explain how the government protects us from monopolies.
Can I call ’em or what?
The real deal is that there should be as many licenses as the bandwidth will allow and none of them should be allowed to merge, ever.
The phrase “begging the question” comes to mind. “As many as the bandwidth will allow?” Do you mean over the entire spectrum, or within some band that’s arbitrarily set aside by the FCC for satellite radio? If the latter, all the FCC has to do is allocate only enough bandwidth for two national carriers, and the result is the same.
“None of them allowed to merge, ever?” What if they’re losing money? Are they allowed to go out of business? If not, how do you keep them in business? If they are, do you create new firms (and how?) in order to make sure that there are still as many firms “as the bandwidth allows?”