FCC Votes to Ease Media Ownership Restrictions

[DLR'sCock]

FCC Votes to Ease Media Ownership Restrictions
By Peter Kaplan
Reuters

Tuesday 18 December 2007

Washington - The Federal Communications Commission narrowly approved on Tuesday a loosening of media ownership restrictions in the 20 biggest U.S. cities, despite objections from consumer groups and a threat by some U.S. senators to revoke the action.

The FCC voted 3-2, along party lines, to ease the 32-year-old ban on ownership of a newspaper and broadcast outlet in a single market.

In addition, the FCC action exempted 36 newspaper-broadcast ownership combinations that had been grandfathered under the previous rule. It also gave exemptions to six combinations that were pending before the agency.

The FCC's Republican chairman, Kevin Martin, called the move a "relatively minimal loosening of the ban" and said it "may help to forestall the erosion in local news coverage."

The vote came over the objections of the FCC's two Democratic commissioners and in the face of opposition from lawmakers in Congress.

The FCC action provoked an immediate rebuke from the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan.

Dingell said he was "greatly displeased" that Martin had gone ahead with the vote despite calls for him to take more time to study the issue.

"Despite specific bipartisan and bicameral opposition, the Federal Communications Commission acted arrogantly and brazenly today to weaken the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban," he said in a statement.

Before the FCC vote, Democrats on the commission reiterated past criticism that easing the ownership rule will lead to more consolidation in the industry, eliminate independent voices and degrade local news coverage.

They also said it created a loophole that would let media owners combine newspapers and broadcast outlets in many smaller markets around the United States, not just the top 20 cities.

"The FCC has never attempted such a brazen act of defiance against Congress," said Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. "The law does not say we are to serve those who seek to profit by using the public airwaves.

Existing FCC rules ban ownership of a newspaper, and a television or radio station in the same market, unless the FCC grants a waiver.

The vote came a day after a group of 25 senators sent a letter to Martin warning they would "move legislation to revoke the rule and nullify the vote" if the FCC went ahead with the ownership rule changes.

The group, including Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii, and the panel's top Republican, Ted Stevens of Alaska, said the FCC had not spent enough time studying the issue and seeking public input.

On November 30, the three Republican commissioners approved an order temporarily waiving the ownership restrictions for media group Tribune Co, allowing the company to proceed with its planned leveraged buy-out.

Tribune shares ended 3.2 percent higher at $33.31 at the close of regulator trading Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/mediaownership_fcc_dc)

[LoungeMachine]

Another victory for Big Friends of BushCO. [BFB]

One reason why McMedia doesn't want Edwards nominated.

And with a nod towards FORD, the reason they skewered Dr. Dean.

:gulp:

[DLR'sCock]

The eternal struggle of the Democracy that should be vs The Plutocracy that have been for a long time.

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, because such loosening of restrictions has been so good for the industry...

These corporate pricks are their own worst enemies...

[FORD]

Fascist
Corporatist
Cocksuckers

:gun:

[Nickdfresh]

This of course means more homogeneized banality...

Much like "FreeFM" (you get what you pay for). News to CBS radio dickheads, if I wanted to listen to an iPod, I'd be listening to my iPod and not the fucking radio...

[hideyoursheep]

Then what the fuck is this all about?:

FCC Chairman Hints That XM + Sirius Merger Would Be Blocked
4 comments Friday, January 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Tags: , XM
While the rumored merger announcement from XM and Sirius at NAIAS obviously didn't happen, the topic about a potential merger continues to go on.
At this week's Citigroup investor conference, we got a brief glimpse as to the FCC's stance on the matter. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin was at the event and was asked about the concept of a merger between Sirius and XM, and he hinted that it would potentially be held up by the FCC.

While the FCC Chairman didn't take a specific stance on the issue, he's quoted by Inside Radio as saying that the closest situation would be the way the Commission handled "what we did on [satellite] television," referring to the blocked merger between DirecTV and Dish Network (Echostar).

The DirecTV/Echostar merger was blocked because it would create a monopoly in areas where there is no terrestrial signal. There is absolutely no difference with radio, regardless of whether you think satellite radio competes with iPods and Internet content (both of which have video capabilities by the way). So you have to wonder why management from Sirius, and now apparently XM, are still "open" to the idea.

Seems like a monopoly already exists, and with the new "easing of restrictions" more of a monopoly is on the horizon.

If a merger would bring the cost of service down for the CONSUMER, why then would these same hypocrites work so hard to block a merger?

[hideyoursheep]

UPDATE:

FCC chief defends media ownership plan By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is disputing Democratic assertions that a new rule loosening restrictions on media ownership is full of loopholes and will lead to a wave of mergers and fewer choices for consumers.



Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps described the commission's decision approving the measure as "one that would make George Orwell proud," referring to the English author best known for his novels critiquing totalitarianism and for popularizing the phrase "Big Brother is watching you."

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said the commission action was a "relatively minor loosening" of a single rule.

The conflicting impressions say a lot about the divisive nature of the media ownership debate. Too much media in the hands of too few companies raises fears of an emerging corporate big brother and fewer news and information sources.

The commission vote, along strict party lines, will allow a single company to own a television or radio station and a newspaper in the 20 largest metropolitan areas of the country.

"I think this was actually a very moderate attempt to adjust our rules to reflect some of the changes that are occurring in the marketplace," Martin told The Associated Press in a recent interview.

However, the two Democrats on the commission say the rule will open the door to a new wave of media consolidation. The chairman was also criticized for granting waivers to a number of existing cross-ownership arrangements.

Martin says the loopholes are actually exceptions that create a high hurdle for such combinations to be approved in markets that are not among the 20 largest in the nation.

Last week's decision was the latest action in a proceeding left over from 2003, when under similar circumstances, the commission voted to loosen several ownership rules. The 2003 vote sparked a bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill and helped fuel a well-organized and energetic media reform movement. A year later, the commission decision was rejected by a federal appeals court and the rules were sent back to the FCC for review.

Last month, Martin outlined his plan in The New York Times and released the text of the rule to the public. The chairman argued that the newspaper industry was in financial trouble and the commission should provide relief by loosening the 32-year-old cross-ownership ban.

Under his proposal, for a merger to be approved it must occur in one of the 20 largest metropolitan areas and involve only one TV or radio station. Also, the TV station could not be among the top four in the market, and post-transaction, at least eight independent media voices would remain.

Martin's first draft of the proposal also included a confusing exception that would allow combinations outside the top 20 markets if they resulted in the creation of more local news or if the newspaper was in financial distress, among other factors.

Opponents of media consolidation read it as a giant loophole. At a Senate hearing, Martin pledged to work with opponents to tighten up the language, but instead, according to some, ended up making it more complicated.

The new rule change "keeps the old loopholes and includes two new pathways to cross ownership approval," wrote Copps. It also provided waivers to 42 newspaper-television station combinations, according to the other Democratic commissioner, Jonathan Adelstein.

Since then, questions over what the rule actually means have lingered. The rule itself — despite a commission vote — has yet to be released to the public.

Martin told the AP that his proposal creates two paths for cross-ownership approval — one for larger markets with many voices and one for smaller markets.

In smaller markets, the presumption is that it is not in the public interest to allow these combinations. But there are two exceptions: If it creates more news or bails out a failing station.

For the news exception, the transaction must create at least seven hours of new local news programming per week on a station that has not aired local news.

For the failing station exception, the TV station must have a 4 percent or lower audience share and a negative cash flow for the previous three years, and the buyer must show the combination will benefit the public.

The rule also provides a path to approval for combinations that may not meet those factors but still may be in the public interest.

For approval, applicants must demonstrate by "clear and convincing evidence" that the combination will increase the diversity of independent news outlets and increase competition among independent news sources.

This would be demonstrated by a combination of factors, including consideration of the existing level of ownership concentration in the market; whether the combination will increase the amount of local news, and a promise that the owner will employ separate and independent editorial staffs. The commissioners would also consider the financial condition of the station or newspaper and look favorably on a commitment by the new owners to "invest significantly in newsroom operations."

Martin calls the test a "very high hurdle" and a "strict standard."

Martin was also criticized following the vote for a series of waivers granted to other station combinations.

The chairman says 36 of those are located in cities where the combination predates the 1975 ban. The cross-ownership permission in those markets doesn't transfer to a new owner.

In five other markets, the owners asked for waivers prior to 2000 in anticipation that that commission would relax the ban. They include Phoenix, where Gannett Co. Inc. owns the Arizona Republic and KPNX-TV, and several smaller cities with cross-owned properties owned by Media General Inc.

Martin said a public interest analysis was done in those markets.

"In anticipation of the commission changing its rules and they had already done a lot of integration of their newsroom operations and there had already been a lot of the synergies created," he said. "There was a determination made that it would actually be more harmful to the public interest to require those things to be pulled back apart."

The decision is likely to be challenged in court, and members of Congress are attempting to invalidate it with legislation, though the Bush administration has threatened to thwart those efforts.

That aside, the practical impact of the vote is in dispute, not surprisingly.

"I expect we'll see some activity" regarding new mergers, Copps said. "We just have to see how many deals are going to get done."

Martin said only a limited number of combinations are possible in the largest markets and that he doesn't think there will be "the wave of transactions people were afraid of or are talking about."
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k83/mym1961/tapdancingbox.gif

[letsrock]

Newspapers are old technology. Nobody cares, or gives a shit.