Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in practice many of its markets are subject to extensive regulation. That is especially so in
the media business, where companies are bound by strict limits on market share and
cross-media ownership. Lawmakers and regulators have limited the number of TV and
radio stations a single company could own almost since the technologies were invented,
Tight regulation of broadcasters seemed justified in the days when a small number of
networks—NBC, ABC and CBS—had almost the entire audience to themselves. But the
rationale for this has weakened, along with the original network‟s ratings share, with the
rise of multi-channel satellite and cable televisions. The 1969 Supreme Court decision,
which upheld the idea that spectrum is scarce, gave the FCC the responsibility to police
the airwaves by deciding ownership limits (Mega-Giants). When this was decided,
however, there was no Internet, no widespread cable penetration, and no satellite service.
There were just the three above-mentioned networks. There was no digital capacity to
allow for the squeezing of more and more channels into the available spectrum, or low-
power TV. There were only a handful of conventional media outlets available in
Even as cable networks attract greater shares, public interest groups and other critics want
more rules to limit the ability of local television broadcasters to conduct business. These
proponents of continuing the ban argue that newspapers and local TV stations remain the
dominant source of news for most people and that letting them combine would reduce
competition and independent viewpoints (Healey). But the other side argues that the
2 | Lewis
media environment is dramatically different today—so different that the rule is no longer
necessary. The number of TV stations and radio broadcasters has increased by more than
50%, as have the number of TV broadcast networks. With most households receiving
scores of channels via cable or satellite TV, the four largest networks draw less than 50%
recorders are growing fast, reducing the effectiveness of the only product that stations
sell: advertising time (Fratrik). And in the future, wide access to video programs via the
Internet will become a reality, adding an infinite number of choices for the local
consumer. That said, isn‟t it true that the plethora of competing sources of information
and the open platform provided by the Internet make the current media environment the
Don‟t the proponents understand that further constraints jeopardize the viability of local
television stations? Don‟t these critics recognize that, without the modest deregulation of
ownership rules proposed by the FCC, television stations in many midsize and small
markets would find it difficult enough to keep the lights on, let alone serve their local
communities (Fratrik)? Certainly some local television stations will continue to prosper,
especially the stronger operations in the largest markets. But even those stations will face
more struggles in the future as consumers are offered more choices and have different
viewing alternatives. The more immediate concerns are the weaker stations or the stations
in the smaller markets. Without any ownership rule relief, local stations now facing
systems are finding themselves in dire times, threatening their position and ability to
3 | Lewis
serve their communities. It‟s clear we are stuck in a system that serves the major media
companies and their profitability but does not serve the interests of localism, diversity
Under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the
Through this agreement, broadcasters have accepted the commitment to serve the public
interest in exchange for free use of the spectrum. Anti-trust laws should be sufficient
enough to guard against monopoly business practices. The public and broadcasters, not
government, should be the arbiters of content. Giving the government power over
information outlets can pose threats far greater than the perceived dangers of
consolidation. Clearly the public is not well-served by broadcasters whose size, scope and
broadcasters who are prevented from becoming more efficient and are saddled with
further expensive obligations (Fratrik). And clearly, not the communities served by these
broadcasters. There‟s no doubt the provisions that governed the transition from analog to
digital television, revised the broadcast ownership rules, and altered broadcast-licensing
procedures have had an important impact on the viewing public. Consumers are deciding
4 | Lewis
Fratrik, Mark. “Loosen Up, Already.” Broadcasting & Cable. New York: Apr 18, 2005.
Vol. 135, Iss. 16; pg. 37. EBSCO Host Research Databases. Online. 10 July
2007.
Geller, Henry. “Promoting the public interest in the digital era.” Federal Communications
Law Journal. Los Angeles: May 2003. Vol. 55, Iss. 3; pg. 515. EBSCO Host
Research Databases. Online. 10 July 2007.
Healey, Jon. “Media ownership rules are so „70s; Technology and public tastes have
changed radically but regulations haven‟t kept pace.” Los Angeles Times. Los
Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 2006, pg. B. 17. EBSCO Host Research Databases.
Online. 10 July 2007.
“Mega-Giants and Scarcity.” Broadcasting & Cable. New York: Dec 6, 2004. Vol. 134,
Iss. 49; pg. 53. EBSCO Host Research Databases. Online. 10 July 2007.
5 | Lewis