FCC Inaction On Media Consolidation Continues On Anniversary Of Prometheus Ruling

from the sitting-on-your-hands dept

One year ago today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project. The decision provided a reset to a seventeen year long legal dispute over the FCC’s media ownership rules that had its inception in the Third Circuit in 2004.

In 1996, the Telecommunications Act included substantial revisions to the FCC’s ownership rules for broadcast stations. These changes led to a massive round of consolidation, especially in radio, giving rise to massive radio companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus.

Included in the Telecommunications Act was an ongoing requirement that the agency periodically review its ownership rules. This requirement was initially on a two-year (biennial) cycle that was later expanded to a four-year (quadrennial) review. As part of this mandate the FCC reviewed ownership in 1998 and in 2000 but took almost no action as the broadcast industry was still going through a substantial upheaval caused by rapid consolidation in radio.

Then, after conducting the 2002 Biennial review, the agency released a new set of ownership guidelines called the Diversity Index in 2003. Several legal challenges were filed to the FCC’s actions, and those challenges were consolidated into Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, heard by the Third Circuit, which released its decision in June of 2004.

The decision, and the three that followed in 2011, 2016 and 2019, were harsh rebuttals of the FCC’s decision-making and represented a substantial set-back for the agency. The criticisms of the agency’s processes were focused on two major issues. First, the FCC did not, and would not, consider the effect of the rules changes on station ownership by minorities and women, and second, the FCC was unable (and largely unwilling) to generate empirical evidence that the changes the agency was trying to implement were having the desired effects.

I’ve discussed this sequence of events in research in the Federal Communications Law Journal here and here, as well as in the Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, and in a series of podcasts with the folks at Radio Survivor.

With just one day remaining in the Trump administration, and his chairmanship of the FCC, Ajit Pai’s agency and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) argued in front of the Supreme Court that they should be freed from the ongoing (and still unanswered) remands from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Release from the ongoing remand cycle was an important part of the petition made to the court, and to be fair, was argued for very eloquently by NAB Counsel Helgi Walker during oral arguments.

The decision, written by Justice Kavanaugh was narrow, but provided the relief that the industry and the FCC were seeking, primarily by focusing on the agency’s most recent action on media ownership from 2017 to the exclusion of the events of the other 13 years of the lengthy dispute. However, there was a lingering, and unresolved issue left on the table by the court’s opinion: Notably: how to handle the 2018 Quadrennial Review Process.

While the conflict over the FCC’s 2016 and 2017 decisions were pending in the Third Circuit, the agency launched, on the last possible day to do so, the 2018 Quadrennial Review, but functionally took no further action in the matter. Now, in early 2022, without a full Commission, the agency faces an unfinished review from 2018 and another review of its ownership rules mandated by the Telecommunications Act to be launched this year.

It bears mention, even as we celebrate another year without action by the agency… even in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, that the agency could have acted at multiple points itself to break the deadlock, but it chose not to. The agency did not complete the 2010 Quadrennial review, rolling it right into the 2014 review, and then not acting until ordered by the Third Circuit to do so in April of 2016.

Then, after releasing an order in response to the Third Circuit in August of 2016 that made no significant changes to the existing rules, in 2017 the agency, now led by Ajit Pai, issued a new set of ownership rules, based on the same administrative record, that fundamentally altered several of the existing regulations, and then even after a loss in court in 2019, decided to continue pursuing legal remedies rather than complete the open 2018 proceeding.

So, in the end, as the agency has squandered another year, we should remember that the FCC is doing so in a way that is basically a trifecta of policy failure. The Commission is making the broadcast industry miserable by not updating the rules, while not developing functional policies to promote diverse ownership by women and minorities. Then there’s that small detail where the existing rules are still allowing local stations to get swallowed up by conglomerates, often removing the important local aspects to their news and informational content and thus hurting local audiences. 

But hey, I mean, what’s another year between friends, right?

Christopher Terry is an assistant professor of media law in the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota and a research fellow for the Center for Quantum Networks.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Inaction On Media Consolidation Continues On Anniversary Of Prometheus Ruling”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

Sure about that?

The Commission is making the broadcast industry miserable by not updating the rules, while not developing functional policies to promote diverse ownership by women and minorities. Then there’s that small detail where the existing rules are still allowing local stations to get swallowed up by conglomerates, often removing the important local aspects to their news and informational content and thus hurting local audiences.

I wouldn’t describe that as ‘miserable’, sounds like the desired outcome is being achieved quite nicely.

Anonymous Coward says:

let’s face it, this bunch on the FCC board have been a complete waste of space! they have done absolutely nothing to get clarity with anything! the most important item on their agenda should be to get Net Neutrality reinstated, but there hasn’t been any steps at all towards that! it’s almost as if they dont want to offend the telecoms or entertainment industries while not giving a flyin’ fuck about the people they’resupposed to be helping and protecting! what a total shambles!!

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

I don’t get the ‘problem’

I approach this from ignorance.
But I really don’t understand the issue. From 87.9-107.9 there’s a LOT of spectrum.
And a lot of local content. Here we have 8 colleges, three high schools. All the national stations. 5 entirely local music stations. 2 local talk stations.
And foreign languages beyond Spanish. There’s a French station, 2 polish, Italian, Russian, and Korean.

So I’m missing the concern. There’s clearly no problem, at least here, with minority consumption.

So the question is: is the concern about minority ownership? If so, you really can’t blame someone for selling out to a mega group willing to pay mega bucks. And forcing someone to turn down mega bucks is itself a questionable idea!

Unless a station is hoarding spectrum and not broadcasting, or intentionally over-broadcasting their spectrum… there’s not much I can see that should change.
Obviously sitting on dead air is a problem.

But in the era of digital broadcast piggybacking is common, and easy.
In started by mentioning only the analog stations.
When you look at digital stations we literally have alphabet coverage from Arabic to Zulu!

Am I missing something here?

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s not. And I’m aware of that. But locations like where I am show that it’s more than possible.

Well there’s something to the losses of “voice” in buying up multiple licenses: we can’t really fail someone for turning over their business to someone willing to pay you for it.

The lack of “voice” in any area is less a problem with the system and far more an issue in lack of people both willing and able.
You also need a market for whatever it is you wish to air.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...