Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Darn editors
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 05:12:52 -0400
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> To: "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>[Note: This item comes from reader Janos Gereben. I posted the original version of Janos's story to the list. I thought that my readers would enjoy this reminder that behind the stories that you read in the news stands a process that involves a number of players besides the original reporter or journalist. DLH]At 12:44 -0700 9/17/01, Janos Gereben wrote:From: "Janos Gereben" <janos451 () earthlink net> Subject: Let's also bomb editors Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:44:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 An idiotic 451 editor not only changed the meaning of my very simple FCC story, but "languaged" it beyond endurance. Just for fun, look at No. 2 (his) did with No. 1 (mine) - 2/Rewrite San Francisco - The new, Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission opened up a long-anticipated review of regulations that place limits on cross ownership of television stations and newspapers in the same market, as well as regulations which limit how large cable network operators can get. Most observers expect the FCC to relax these regulations in light of recent court rulings, a move which could give rise to further consolidation in the media industry. The Commission gave notice last Thursday that Chairman Michael K. Powell and the commissioners unanimously voted it will open up proceedings in the face of a court ruling striking down the FCC's attempt earlier this year to limit ownership. In March the Court of Appeals raised the possibility of cable companies' free-speech rights being violated if the FCC placed limits on what they can own; the three-judge panel sent the proposed rules back to the Commission for revisions or elimination. Because the rules were drafted when the agency had a majority of Democrats, and now Powell and a Republican majority were in charge, analysts expect the government to severely curtail attempta to prevent big-corporation dominance of both content and distribution pipelines. The challenge came in form of initiating a proceeding to consider the "proper horizontal and vertical ownership limits" for cable companies, in an effort to develop "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny." The language is a direct response to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied FCC jurisdiction because it found adequate support for prior limits. By initiating the proceeding, the Commission has served notice that it will still attempt to maintain jurisdiction in the murky - and highly significant - matter of media concentration in the video programming market. Once evidence is gathered and the FCC complies with the court mandate for "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny," a new attempt is expected by the regulatory body to establish rules for a subscriber cap or the "safe-harbor" approach by which the Commission could avoid caps as long as a certain level of competition is achieved without regulation. The National Cable Television Association - led by such prominent members as AOL Time Warner and AT&T - has lobbied against the regulations, claiming that existing antitrust laws are better suited to deal with anti-competitive behavior than new rules handed down and enforced by the FCC. The regulations voided (for the time) by the court prohibited individual companies from serving more than 30% of US cable subscribers or controlling more than 40% of programming. Another rule coming under scrutiny is one that bars companies from distributing content from affiliated companies on more than 40% of their first 75 channels. Additionally, many companies are looking to own both newspapers and broadcast properties in the same market, a practice which is currently banned but may be repealed. AOL Time Warner and AT&T would be the most likely companies to be impacted by changes in these rules, but Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are also challenging Commission rule-making because of the prohibition against any one company owning stations reaching more than 35% of homes in the US. If the rules are significantly relaxed, companies like AOL may seek to expand their holdings even further. AOL has reportedly signaled an interest earlier this month in buying AT&T Broadband, which is already the largest cable operator in the US. No. 1/mine FCC persists in setting cable ownership limits [An unexpected new move is seen as a Commission attempt to prevent domination by AOL Time Warner, AT&T, and the TV networks.] Against previous indications that the new, Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission may allow new monopolies to consolidate their power in the content space, the commissioners last week moved in the opposite direction over cable ownership. In face of a court ruling striking down the FCC's attempt earlier this year to limit ownership, the Commission gave notice last Thursday that it will continue to seek ways to establish rules and claim jurisdiction. The challenge came in form of initiating a proceeding to consider the "proper horizontal and vertical ownership limits" for cable companies, in an effort to develop "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny." The language is a direct response to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied FCC jurisdiction because it found adequate support for prior limits. By initiating the proceeding, the Commission has served notice that it will attempt to regain jurisdiction in the murky - and highly significant - matter of media concentration in the video programming market. Once evidence is gathered and the FCC complies with the court mandate for "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny," a new attempt is expected by the regulatory body to establish rules for a subscriber cap or the "safe-harbor" approach by which the Commission could avoid caps as long as a certain level of competition is achieved without regulation. When in March the Court of Appeals raised the possibility of cable companies' free-speech rights being violated if the FCC decides what they can own, the three-judge panel sent the proposed rules back to the Commission for revisions or elimination. Because the rules were drafted when the agency had a majority of Democrats, and now Michael K. Powell and a Republican majority were in charge, analysts expected an end to the US attempt to prevent big-corporation dominance of both content and distribution pipelines. Apparently, however, this is not what happened. The National Cable Television Association - led by such prominent members as AOL Time Warner and AT&T - lobbies on behalf of the status quo, claiming that existing antitrust laws are better suited to deal with anti-competitive behavior than new rules handed down and enforced by the FCC. The regulations voided (for the time) by the court prohibited individual companies from serving more than 30% of US cable subscribers or controlling more than 40% of programming. AOL Time Warner and AT&T would be the most likely companies to be impacted by those rules, but Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are also challenging Commission rule-making because of the prohibition against any one company owning stations reaching more than 35% of homes in the US. Public-interest groups, including the Media Access Project, say that the FCC has an obligation to balance the free-speech rights of big companies against concerns that too much media consolidation could limit public access to information from diverse sources.
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
Current thread:
- IP: Darn editors David Farber (Sep 18)