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 The Dual Network Rule was originally enacted over sixty years ago and flatly prohibited any entity from owning more than one radio network.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.”