[opendtv] Re: B&C: Pai Teeing Up Media Ownership Order
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:43:02 -0400
On Aug 11, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
National caps should be fair game, IMO, but the local caps, not so much on
ownership of printed media, but on "voices heard," should stay. Even for
broadcasters themselves, to retain a shred of credibility. Nothing kills
credibility more than when the public sees the identical formulaic bullsh*t
from all of the local outlets.
Not that I watch the broadcast local and network news, but when I do I see NO
DIFFERENCE between the stations and especially the networks. At least a
significant portion of local news is weather and sports...
Unfortunately, this activist FCC is destroying the FCC's credibility.
What credibility?
Everything they do seems designed to show just how much they are in the
pockets of the few special interests. Okay, we get it, you're on the take. Is
that the reaction you want to hear? Or do you not see that's the message
coming through, loud and clear?'
That message has been coming through pound and clear for almost a century.
There is a bit of change when the party in the White House gets to appoint
commissioners, but the reality is that the FCC has protected the "special
interests" in the name of "the public interest," and Congress has been fine
with that.
So I guess its just a case of which special interests you favor Bert...
I would prefer a spectrum management and communications policy that promotes
competition, not the special interests that the FCC regulates.
There are two paragraphs in the article worth a second look:
Pai has long argued that cross-ownership rules are an artifact of a media
marketplace before robust competition from cable, satellite and the
internet. Cable and satellite companies have no similar limits on ownership,
nor do over-the-top video distributors. The FCC has consistently said
over-the-top video distribution is beyond its purview, except for trying to
ensure that distributors don't anti-competitively hinder OTT growth.
This captures the regulate versus deregulate situation perfectly. Where the
marketplace is allowed to work there is real competition and multiple
viewpoints. Not sure what Bert can take exception with in this Pai statement.
And this paragraph explains why the FCC is fundamentally broken:
Such an order would almost certainly be challenged by anti-consolidation
activists in the Third Circuit, where proposed media ownership rule changes
dating back to the chairmanship of Michael Powell have been the subject of
numerous decisions, remands and responses.
This is how political regulation works Bert.
- The special interests paper the FCC with comments from their K street
lawyers.
- The Commission makes a decision, which is immediately litigated by the
special interest that did not get its way.
- The courts tell the FCC to try again.
- Another attempt to change the regulations is advanced by the FCC, often after
a change in the party in the White House.
- The new decision is litigated.
Years pass with no change, while the lawyers and lobbyists get rich.
So what would happen if Congress told the FCC to auction the broadcast
spectrum, with no special deals for the incumbent occupants. IF a broadcaster
wanted to continue broadcasting they could bid for the spectrum; they could buy
enough to replicate their existing business, or enough to serve the entire
market. And they would then be able to use this spectrum in any way they want.
No FCC rules. No FCC technical standards. No litigation.
I'm sure Bert will have problems with this, but it seems to be working in the
cellular industry, MVPDs, OTT services and yes, even the Internet.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
