Techdirt. Stories filed under "broadcasters" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "broadcasters"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:09:32 PDT Appeals Court Tosses FCC's Media Ownership Rules Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/01535815006/appeals-court-tosses-fccs-media-ownership-rules.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/01535815006/appeals-court-tosses-fccs-media-ownership-rules.shtml media ownership rule relaxations. As you may know, there were existing rules that said the same company couldn't own a newspaper along with a local TV station. The reasoning behind this was the fear that a single operator of both the paper news and broadcast news would dominate the local news dissemination business and could influence the public too much. Of course, in the age of the internet, that seems really silly. And the FCC's rule change was incredibly minor. As we wrote at the time:
In the top 20 media markets, newspapers can merge with a single radio or TV station -- but not if that TV station is one of the top 4 stations in that market. In other words, newspapers who are struggling to get beyond just being newspapers can finally expand into other media areas. I can't understand why people are freaked out about this. At best, a newspaper can now own a tiny radio or TV station. The fear of only one point of view getting through is totally laughable for a variety of reasons. First, there are more sources of media than ever before in history -- by a long shot. To think that a single TV station or newspaper can dominate the conversation is laughable. Second, since it can't involve a top 4 TV station, it's hard to believe that this new entity will have all that much dominance in the market.
But people still went crazy about this and lawsuits were filed. Over in the Third Circuit, a court has now dumped the new rules on what appears to basically be a technicality. Apparently, the FCC ""failed to meet the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act" to make this change. The standard procedure requires 90 days of response time, but Kevin Martin only gave people 28 days to comment.

Again, this whole thing seems pretty silly. Even if people still rely on broadcast news, this simply isn't going to have that big of an impact.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> does-it-really-matter? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110708/01535815006 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:51:09 PDT Court Sorta Kinda Allows Marginally More Media Cross Ownership Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1340458699/court-sorta-kinda-allows-marginally-more-media-cross-ownership.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1340458699/court-sorta-kinda-allows-marginally-more-media-cross-ownership.shtml tried to loosen media ownership rules, leading to complaints from people who still don't seem to recognize that the internet is a pretty big competitor these days with the old media companies. In 2007, the FCC came up with a compromise that very marginally loosened media ownership rules: basically, in just the top 20 media markets, a newspaper could merge with a single radio or TV station but not if that TV station was one of the top 4 in the market. In other words, there was no way this minor loosening of the rules was going to lead to some feared situation of one company dominating the media landscape.

But, still, lots of people protested that suddenly all our news was going to come from Rupert Murdoch, and politicians looked to invalidate the rule while lawsuits were filed. A judge eventually banned putting the rules into effect, but an appeals court has now temporarily lifted the ban. While some are still complaining about this, the impact is likely to be negligible at best. As Editor & Publisher explains:
It's safe to say that Tuesday's Third Circuit action -- which could prove only a temporary lifting of the ban -- won't set off any buying binge among newspapers.

For one thing, nobody is going to lend newspapers money to buy media these days. That lesson's been learned until the next bubble comes around. And even if a newspaper had the jack to swing a deal, there's little point in spending it on the fourth-place -- or worse -- broadcast outlet in town.


Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> yawn http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100324/1340458699 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:13:20 PDT How To Get Spectrum Back From TV For More Useful Purposes Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0400306633.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0400306633.shtml allocated today, you discover that TV broadcasters have a huge chunk of spectrum (that chart doesn't directly display how much spectrum is actually included -- I remember seeing another chart, which I can't find now, that shows proportionally how much more spectrum broadcasters have). This was given to them -- entirely for free -- years ago, when spectrum wasn't used for much. These days, however, spectrum is precious for so many different things, and certainly much of it could be put to better use. Of course, the broadcasters aren't thrilled with giving up any of their windfall. For years, they dragged their feet, kicking and screaming, about switching from analog to digital broadcasting, which was needed to reclaim some spectrum. More recently, they've been fighting attempts to use "white space" spectrum -- which is spectrum that's unused, but close to used spectrum. The broadcasters insist there will be interference, while technologists insist the technology is good enough to block interference.

So, it's interesting that, just as we're hearing of the first tests of white space networks, the FCC is also talking to broadcasters about other ways to reclaim some spectrum and put it to use on something more useful and productive. Apparently, the plan on the table right now would be for broadcasters to give up the spectrum in return for a cut of the revenue the government would get in auctioning off the spectrum for wireless use. Of course, some may find it distasteful that public spectrum that was given to these companies for free can then get sold off with at least some of the money going to those who never bought or truly "owned" the spectrum in the first place. But, given that the FCC set things up in a way where it basically created a de facto ownership structure of the spectrum, it's difficult to see any reasonable way to get that spectrum back without paying for it.

In the link above, Adam Thierer suggests we just give the current holders property rights in the spectrum, and assume that they'll then sell it off to those who can do something more innovative with it (or change and do something more innovative themselves). I've long been a proponent of giving up the ridiculous idea of having the government decide how each slice of spectrum must be used. Why not let the companies who control the various slices of spectrum make use of it as they see fit? It seems more likely that we'd get more efficient uses of the spectrum. So, it's good to see more thinking about ways to put some of that spectrum to better use, but it would be nice if we allowed the market, rather than the government, to figure out how to best use it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> property-rights? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091022/0400306633