Media Ownership Rules Controversy
The media ownership rules started their existence in 1941 when the Local Radio Ownership law was presented. The Dual Network Rule of 1946 followed this rule. The Dual Network Rule was originally enacted over sixty years ago and flatly prohibited any entity from owning more than one radio network. A few years later the law was expanded to include television networks. This meant that radio and television networks were not allowed to merge with one another. These rule basically stayed intake, along with additional laws until 1975.
In 1975, the Federal Communications adopted a rule called the newspaper / broadcast-ownership ban which prohibited a newspaper and a broadcast or radio station from being co-owned if located in the same market. Over forty newspaper / broadcast cross-owned properties were grand fathered into place when the rule was established. For the last 30 years, the FCC has not changed this rule despite repeated finding since 1996 that it needs to be reviewed and revised.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 becomes law. Section 202 of the Act instructs the Federal Communications Commission to review its media ownership rules every two years, and to consider "whether any such rules are necessary in the public interest as a result of competition."
From1996 until this very day the FCC’s Media Ownership Rules have been under controversy. The 1996 rules states the FCC will review ownership every two years, yet the ownership issue wasn’t brought back up until September 20,2001. In this meeting the FCC decided to initiates a Notice of Proposer Rulemaking (NPRM. This NPRM was to decide whether the FCC should consider revising the rules limiting dual ownership of a broadcast station and a newspaper. This was the start of a dance the FCC is still trying to get through.
For the next two month the FCC worked on the ownership issue. October the 29 2001 the FCC announced the creation of a work group dealing with media ownership. Their task was to come up with a” solid factual and analytical foundation for ownership regulations. This panel consisted of seven economist, attorney, and managers employed by the FCC. For what ever reason the FCC also held a roundtable panel on media ownership policies. This panel consisted of consumer advocates, economist, government officials, and academics. On November 9,2001 another NPRM met to discuss local radio ownership rules. In this NPRM the FCC wanted to know how the public comments on the impact of radio ownership consolidation since the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and the relaxations of local radio ownership rules made by the FCC in 1992
The following year the FCC initiated it’s third Biennial Review of the ownership rules. The public was asked three questions by the NPRM. These three questions are as follows: Does the marketplace provide a sufficient level of competition to protect and advance these policy goals? If not, do the current ownership rules achieve these goals? And, Are revisions to the rules required to protect and advance diversity, competition and localism in the media market? This docket opened the questions to the six rules that follow. Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Prohibition (1975): "Prohibits common ownership of a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper when the broadcast station's service contour encompasses the newspaper's city of publication (See October 29, 2001 entry).
Local Radio Ownership (1941, 1996): The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows a company ("entity" in FCC lingo) to own eight radio stations in a market of at least 45 commercial stations, less stations in smaller markets.
National TV Ownership Rule: "The national TV ownership rule prohibits an entity from owning television stations that collectively would reach more than 35% of U.S. television households (S. 126)
Local TV Multiple Ownership (1964): A company can own two TV stations in a region only if "at least eight independently owned and operating commercial or non-commercial full-power broadcast television stations would remain in the D.M.A. [designated market area] after the proposed combination (S. 73)
Radio/TV Cross-Ownership Restriction (1970): "The radio/TV cross-ownership rule generally allows common ownership of one or two TV stations and up to six radio stations in any market where at least twenty independent 'voices' would remain post-combination; two TV stations and up to four radio stations in a market where at least ten independent 'voices' would remain post-combination; and one TV and one radio station notwithstanding the number of independent 'voices' in the market." (S. 98, note 176)
Dual Network Rule (1946): "The dual network rule was originally adopted over sixty years ago and flatly prohibited any entity from maintaining more than a single radio network. A few years later, the rule was extended to television networks. This means that radio and TV networks cannot merge with each other. (S. 157)
These six questions were reviewed in meeting after meeting for the next year. On June 3,2003 the FCC voted two to three to revise many of the ownership rules. August of the same year a petition for and a motion to keep the newly enacted media ownership rule was filed. September 16,2003 the Senate voted to overturn the FCC’s TV/newspaper cross ownership rule. This back and forth dance went on until December of 2007 when the FCC voted three to two to relax the ownership issue again, only to have the Senate overturn the FCC’s rule in April of this year.
Net neutrality is a huge issue associated with media ownership. When people sign online they assume they will have unregulated access to any website at any given time from many particular location at the fastest speed. They assume they can utilize and service, whether it is watching online videos, listening to podcasts, or instant messaging anytime they want to. Network neutrality is the current standard that allows us to do exactly that. The term “net neutrality” simply means no discrimination and calls for deregulated Internet. It prevents Internet providers from altering information on the web, blocking sites, and speeding up or slowing down content based regardless of the source, who owns it, or where it comes from. This concept has been an element of the Internet since its genesis in the 1930’s. The inventors of the World Wide Web Vinton Cerf and Sir Tims Berners-Lee always intended for the Internet to be free of government regulation. “Net neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online.” In essence, Net Neutrality means that the networks sole purpose is to move data. It is not the network’s job to choose which data deserves higher quality service.
The leading TV and cable companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner oppose deregulated Internet (Net Neutrality) and want the Internet to be regulated. Instead of Net Neutrality, a concept that has revolutionized the Internet, as we know it today, mega conglomerates have a new vision for the Internet. The CEO’s of the biggest telecom companies have made their intentions clear. Their innovative idea is to implement laws that will benefit their own search engines, Internet, phone services, and streaming videos while simultaneously suffocating their opponents. They want to create an Internet that will provide faster service for the companies (the very few companies) that are willing and able to pay highly inflated tolls. “Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services – or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls – and leave the rest of us on a winding first road.” Major corporations want to tax providers in exchange for guaranteed speedy delivery of data. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an attempt to coerce Congress and the FCC to put an end to Net Neutrality. They have spent hundreds and millions of dollars on a concept that, if instated, will pit the future of the Internet, as we know it at risk.
Internet without Network Neutrality requirements means Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competition that they dislike. Given the opportunity these “gatekeepers” will always put their interests and their companies’ interests ahead of public good. The consequences of an Internet without neutrality are shocking. Innovation would be subdued, competition would be constrained, and access restricted. Without it the web will operate similarly to Cable TV. Network owners will decide what content, channels, and applications will be available to the consumer and the consumer will have to choose from that networks menu. Consumer’s choices and access to free market would be surrendered and only a few corporate executives would reap the benefits. If the Internet is put in the hands of the television and cable mega corporations everyone who uses the Internet will feel the affects.
There are clearly two sides to this argument. One side thinks the Internet should be regulated, the other believes it should not. For the sake of fairness I will explore some both points of view. Those who want to ensure the longevity of Net Neutrality believe that any system of control on Internet content violates the first constitutional amendment by taking away individuals right to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is an absolute right, meaning it cannot be taking away without being “qualified without irreparable damage to civil liberty in a free society.” The major problem and concern around harmful content on the Internet is child pornography. Supporters of net neutrality believe child porn is an extreme example and there is already legislation in play to address and deal with those who try to produce and distribute the material. Some forms of speech on the Internet may be offensive but the only way society can deal with those issues is through. Advocates of regulated Internet argue that People’s unrestricted right to freedom of expression are threatening and can cause irreparable damages. Then there is the issue of harassment via functions of the Internet, which is on the rise. In severe instances hateful persecution has led to suicide or emotional distress. Therefore people’s unrestricted right to freedom of expression threatens the right of children to live a life free from abuse, molestations, as well as the right of ethnic minorities to live their lives free of racism and violence, and the general public to live a life free of harassment.
Another position of those who support net neutrality is that parents and teacher, not regulators, should protect children and control what they can access on the Internet. It is not the role of the state to manage Internet content. If people believe children need to be protected from the Internet it is the responsibility of those who are accountable for their well being to (parents, teachers, guardians, supervisors, etc) to control what they can and cannot gain access to via the World Wide Web. Conversely advocates of regulated Internet deem it imposable for those responsible for children to have that extent of control and power over what children see on the Internet. Computers are not always in the living room or kitchen, rather they are increasingly in the bedrooms and playrooms of children and other internet access devices such as mobile phones make it impossible for parents to keep an ever present watchful eye over what their children do. And in any event it is irrational to expect parents to stand over their children for the entire time they are online every time they are online.
Another argument is that the Internet operates differently than other forms of communication networks. There is no need to regulate the Internet because it is utilized differently than other communication networks. Radio and TV are broadcast into millions of homes at the same time via push technology, whereas the Internet is an interactive medium, which requires conscious user activity in order to gain access to a site or application (pull technology). Supports of regulated Internet in fact consider operational differences of the Internet to be an argument for, rather than against, some regulation. Because Radio and TV are mass media the amount of sex and violence permitted is limited. Parents can be fairly sure that prior to mid evening TV there will be minimal adult content broadcast to viewers. The disparity between TV and Internet is that anybody at any given time is able to access websites, including young children, in the privacy of their own homes, bedrooms, and or studies. It is not enough to affirm that offensive content will and can only be seen by actively seeking it. “At different times and in different configuration, quite, innocent words like “underground”, “overground”, “white house”, and spice girls” have led to pornographic sites.
Those who support deregulated Internet hold the belief that the World Wide Web cannot be regulated because it is an immensely large and global network. The Internet is not like other communication network. It is a limitless global enterprise on the rise. Considering these circumstances, even if one sought to employ some regulation on the Internet, it would not be realistic. “As programmer John Gilmore famously put it. “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” Proponents of a regulated Internet consider this argument not as a reason why regulation is unwelcome; rather a declaration as to why is easier said than done. The fact that something is complicated doesn’t meant hat it should be left alone and unchanged.
The arguments for and against regulated access go on and on but I have touched on a handful of the major standpoints. I personally believe the Internet should remain neutral but many disagree. However I am happy to say that On February 12, 2008, Representatives Ed Markey and Chip Pickering introduced the bipartisan Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008. The bill would preserve Net Neutrality in the Communications Act of 1996. It also includes regulations that require the FCC to hold a minimum of eight “broadband summits” in order to collect public opinion regarding policies to “promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States.”

Internet freedom

Without the Internet freedom YouTube would not be in place, a perfect example of what people can do with this technology and that is if is keep unregulated

Internet Issue and Debate power point

Media Literacy 12/03/08
Prof. Reebee Garafalo
Joseph A. Bettencourt
Media Concentration
&
The Internet Debate

All through out this semester the Media Literacy course has prepared me to view, read and listen to all source of mass media critically. In doing so, I would be able to determine how words, sounds and images are utilized to create meaning or to persuade the public on issues faced by our society today. In addition it has shown me how to deconstruct media report be it in television, newspapers, magazines, videos and the Internet.
In this form I was able to track and analyze, and report on a media related issue and that is the Internet Governance Debate that is actively in progress now. First I will briefly give a summarized background of the origin of the internet, based on literature collected during my group research.

The Internet was the result of some visionary thinking by people in the early 1960s that saw great potential value in allowing computers to share information on research and development in scientific and military fields. J.C.R. Licklider of MIT, first proposed a global network of computers in 1962, and moved over to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in late 1962 to head the work to develop it. Leonard Kleinrock of MIT and later UCLA developed the theory of packet switching, which was to form the basis of Internet connections. (Howe, 2007)

Since the internet was initially funded by the government, it was limited to research, education, and government uses. Commercial uses were prohibited unless they directly served the goals of research and education. It wasn’t until the early 90’s when independent commercial networks began to grow. The first national commercial online service to offer Internet access to its subscribers was the Delphi it open up full Internet services in November 1992.
The Internet originally designed for government purposes has become a great educational tool. People no longer have to go to the library to seek information it is readily at their finger tips. The Internet has also become a venue for people to express their opinion on the web. Freedom of speech is really at a full swing today with the technology provided by the developers. All pretenses of limitations on commercial use disappeared in May 1995 when the National science foundation ended its sponsorship of the Internet backbone. (Howe, 2007)
During this period of businesses entering the Internet arena scrambled to find economic models at work. Free services supported by advertising shifted some of the direct coast away from consumers temporarily. The merging of Time-Warner was the largest merger in history.
The Internet debate originated in 2003 and that is whether to relax or eliminate long lasting rules preventing media consolidation at both the local and national levels. Two dynamic Internet software industries are emerging. One is the data-mining industry, producing software tools that firms use to analyze consumer behavior and preferences on the Internet. The other is the privacy software industry, whose products are designated to stop some or all of this individual information from being collected and analyzed.




What scholars think about the internet governance, this surrounding debate has generated a good deal of learned study, one example is the paper by San Diego University legal scholar Lawrence Solum. He cautions that any governance and law-making measures should respect the layered structure of the Internet, and not impose rules at one layer that have an unintended broader effect at another layer. (Solum, 2008)
Take for instance the white space issue:
Why have white space become on important issue at this point in time?
White space has become an important issue because we are living at an age where technology is advancing at a rapid pace, and for that advancement we require areas that were allocated for other things, such as the band with which was designated to prevent interference between network usages. Also with the internet debate about governance, these issues provided a venue for new ideas and entrepreneurship.
Who is in favor of the FCC proposal?
Of course we all know who would be interested. Those with the resources to make it happen such as: Microsoft, Google, Hewlett-Packard and so on. These are the giants that have the knowledge and resources to commit to such endeavors’. Innovation in technology is always looking for new ventures; of course with intentions to capitalize in those ventures, nothing is done for free anymore.
Who is against it?


According to the article those that are against it are the T V broadcasters and other user of the spectrum. And why not, Microsoft and the likes are trying to invade their territory, therefore creating a convergence between T V and the Internet.
The Internet is an electronic tool used to deliver messages and information. In this sense it is fundamentally the same as the radio and TV in terms of electronic communication networks. Some people believe because these networks are regulated that the Internet should also be regulated. The major problem and concern around harmful content on the Internet is child pornography. In most cases production of child porn involves child abuse, and in many of the bases the people soliciting and accessing the materials are interested in or have engaged in child abuse. All of this is legal and society permits access to such materials many people believe (especially parents, teachers, and those responsible for children) there should be limitation placed on access to Internet content and materials.
Internet is used for to allocate information of conduct commerce but many people use it for other disreputable purposes, many of which are illegal offline. Activities deemed unlawful offline include “copyright theft, credit card fraud, financial scams, money laundering, hacking, industrial espionage, cyber terrorism, actual terrorism, bomb making instructions, prostitution, certain forms of gambling, drug use, drug smuggling, suicide assistance, defamatory allegations, and cyber stalking.



We might argue that any system of control on Internet content on the Internet violates the Constitutions 1st amendment by taking away individuals right to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is an absolute right, meaning it cannot be taken away without being “qualified” without irreparable damage to civil liberty in a free society.
But where do we draw the line violation of our constitution has been an ongoing issue for decades, the civil right movement, the right to vote, in fact if we look at our past history it has become a legacy. Infringement of laws created by men/women, I say women because looking at it realistically when any law is formulated there is a women behind the man making those laws as much as we men want to omit that fact it is still there.
Looking at it from another perspective:
How much are we sacrificing by not allowing the use of white space? Is there some knowledge that we might loose because of it? Who knows?
Historically there is a more regulation of videos, TV, and films in the cinema than newspaper and books because viewers have the power to rewind, view over, and distribute the material more widely. “This is because we recognize that moving pictures and sound are more graphic and powerful than text, photographs, and illustrations.” The Internet increasingly uses video and sound and so it should also be regulated with the same level of power and authority as TV, films, and videos. Simply because it is difficult to censor content on the Internet does not mean we shouldn’t try to do so. It is already difficult enough to prohibit the sale of illegal movies and hardcore pornography but the government does so because it is important to the longevity and safety of society. The same should apply to the online world as does in the offline world.
Restriction of the Internet should be avoided. Child porn is an extreme example and there is already legislation in play to address and deal with those who try to produce and distribute the material. Some forms of speech on the Internet may be offensive but the only way society can deal with those issues is through exposure. Once exposed to these evils society can deal with them accordingly. If we silence people and take away free speech on the internet extremist groups will be driven underground and become “martyrs”. The gap between regulation of print and broadcast media and Internet media is becoming more and more irrelevant. It is a real possibility that in ten years people will rely solely on the Internet for news and entertainment.

FCC Rulings

The media ownership proceeding of 2003 have returned to the table in 2007, the debate continues whether to relax or eliminate longstanding rules preventing media consolidation at both the local and national levels regarding TV, radio, newspapers and cable. The current rules prevent one broadcast network from ownin another broadcast network;limit the number of local broadcast stations that any one broadcaster can own to system serving 35 percent of the TV-viewing households in the U.S.; prohibit a company from ownong cable TV systems and TV stations in the same community, and prohibit ownership of newspapers and TV stationsin the same community. The original reasoning for these rules was to guarantee a multiplicity of voices anr prevent concentrations of power. Today's argument is many of these rule are out dated and need to be reexamined. Big media companies are complaining the rules are artificially constricting their ability to grow and serve their consumer base. Big media claims this damages their capacity to compete in the free marketplace. the Internet poses a threat, as a new source of competition claims the big media companies

The Evolving Technologies Of Internet Privacy

Two dynamic Internet software industries are emerging. One is the data-mining industry, producing software tools that firms use to analyze consumer behavior and preferences on the Internet. The other is the privacy software industry, whose products are designed to stop some or all of this individual information from being collected and analyzed.
Entrepreneurial firms are rushing to offer a variety of products to serve Internet advertising and data-gathering firms on the one hand and individuals and groups with privacy concerns on the other. Interested read more @ http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg156/bg156.html extracted from the National Center of Policies Analysis 11/19/08.

What Scholars think about the internet governance

The surrounding debate has generated a good deal of learned study, one example being a 115-page paper by San Diego University legal scholar Lawrence Solum. Solum, following author Lawrence Lessig, cautions that any governance and law-making measures should respect the layered structure of the internet, and not impose rules at one layer that have an unintended broader effect at another layer. A crude example of bad law would be to propose cutting physical internet links (the bottom layer of at least six) to solve a problem with unacceptable content (the top layer). computerworld.co.zn.rss/compueterworld.xml

Democrats and Republicans alike seem to have an agenda to implement controls over the internet, from pornography to privacy. Telecommunication subdivisions of US economy are under being scrutinized on state, federal, and international levels. Some people are pushing for increased government control, whereas others, myself and my group included believe that the internet should remain deregulated and free of government control. In the recent past many policy makers were in favor of “hands off the internet!” If government does get involved there will be inadvertent consequences. “Lawmakers should exercise patience and humility in the face of ongoing change, and encourage industry to employ self-regulatory solutions instead of assuming Washington has the answers. Unfortunately, however, the impulse to intervene remains strong for many policymakers.”