Tech Policy Weekly from the Technology Liberation Front is a weekly podcast about technology policy from TLF’s learned band of contributors. The shows’s panelists this week are Jerry Brito, Tim Lee, Adam Thierer, and Jim harper. Topics include,
- The REAL ID Act gets hot in the states and in Washington
- Rep. Rick Boucher introduces a watered-down copyright fair use bill
- the FCC slaps it largest fine ever on Spanish-language broadcaster Univision
There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
On the podcast last week I mentioned that if Kevin Martin’s FCC approves the XM-Sirius merger, one of the conditions it could impose is that the new entity accept indecency regulation that satellite radio is not currently subject to. Adam called this “regulatory blackmail,” and now I’m seeing a pattern.
The WSJ reports that Spanish-language broadcaster Univision agreed to pay $24 million fine for violating the Children’s Television Act, which requires broadcasters to show three hours of educational programming a week. “In exchange, the FCC will approve Univision’s sale to a consortium of private-equity groups for $12.3 billion.” The fine is by far the largest the FCC has ever assessed. Not only does Univision have no choice but to accept the fine if it wants its sale to go through, but it seems like the commissioners don’t have a choice either.
The $24-million fine was negotiated by Mr. Martin’s staff, not the five-member FCC board. Several senior FCC officials, including at least one FCC commissioner, said they learned of the fine by reading the New York Times on Saturday. Despite some discomfort about the unusually high amount of the fine, the full FCC board is likely to vote for it. It would be politically difficult for FCC members to vote against enforcing children’s programming standards and the company has apparently agreed to pay the fine to clear the way for its sale.
Joe over at TechDirt today commented on my post yesterday about public television DTV worries. “James Gattuso,” he writes, “sees a possible sinister motive in the move” to get DTV converters distributed. Joe dismisses the idea that public television stations would try to keep the on-the-air viewers away from cable and satellite, where they may find other things to watch besides PBS. It just wouldn’t make sense, he says: “If this were indeed the intention, then the move would be shortsighted, since these stations would be better off making their content more appealing rather than hoping to limit viewer choice”.
But the idea didn’t come from me–it came from public TV executives, at least according to Communications Daily, which wrote:
“Station executives estimate that public TV could lose 10%-15% of its membership if their “loyal” viewers switch to cable or DBS because of a mismanaged transition. That’s because viewers would have more channel choices and less disposable income to contribute, they said. To head off problems, stations are proposing to distribute converter boxes as gifts for pledge contributions or membership incentives, they said.”
Joe perhaps is right that the issue will be insignificant because so few viewers are affected. But that’s not what station execs are saying. Of course, the execs may be wrong. But either way, it hardly inspires confidence in public television management.
As I said yesterday, it’s all very strange.
Susan Crawford asks a good question: How does one reconcile being both “for” network neutrality regulation and rules against media concentration?
To be “for” network neutrality, it seems natural to have the view that the internet is displacing many prior forms of communications modalities–the press is in a free fall, people are watching much less broadcast television, etc.–and so it’s even more important to get internet access policy right and avoid gatekeepers. You’d want to talk about the empowering, emergent communications taking place online.
But to be “for” limits on media ownership, it may be necessary to argue that nothing much has changed. You have to claim that broadcast and newspapers control news and culture, and so it’s important to avoid more consolidation. The internet isn’t changing the local news picture, you’d have to say, and so its existence doesn’t change the media landscape. Blogs aren’t legitimate alternative news sources.
One logical response might be that big media does control information and culture despite the emerging competition of the net and precisely because of this should we have neutrality regulations to protect the fledgling voices. Media ownership rules would also be necessary until the emerging competition on the net actually serves as a check on concentrated media. That’s just me thinking out loud, but I’m sure it’s not too off the mark from the argument we’re likely to see. What I always want to know, and what is rarely made clear, is how much competition is enough to make regulation unnecessary in either context.
Communications Daily reports today that public TV stations are thinking about taking a direct role in distributing DTV converter boxes for their viewers–either by negotiating alliances with retailers, or distributing the devices themselves–perhaps as gifts during pledge drives. Nothing wrong with that–in fact its refreshing to see anyone doing something on the DTV transition without asking more subsidies. And a converter box during pledge week would certainly be nice change of pace from the usual menu of Ken Burns DVDs.
But why are the stations so concerned about getting converter boxes to their viewers? The fear is that without easy access to converters during the DTV transition, viewers would flock to cable TV from over-the-air broadcasting. And although public TV is carried on cable, the stations –according to Comm Daily — are concerned that a shift away from over-the-air viewing would lead (among other things) to “more channel choices” for consumers, less viewship, and fewer contributions to public TV stations.
The key words here: “More channel choices.” There’s something that certainly must be stopped.
When Congress started funding public TV, the rationale was that, because television channels were scarce, viewers didn’t have adequate programming choices. Now, some 40 years later, the concern is there are too many television channels, and public TV is actively working to discourage viewers from obtaining those choices.
The public TV stations’ concern is understandable. They are no doubt right that more viewer choice will reduce their own viewership (and membership). And the stations are reacting the way most businesses would react–by trying to limit that choice. But why should federal taxpayers give them subsidies as they do it?
Very strange.
Frank Ahrens, the Washington Post’s outstanding media affairs reporter, has posted a short review of a new book I’ve been meaning to review myself by Eric Klinenberg called “Fighting for the Air: The Battle for America’s Media.” Klinenberg’s book is another “sky-is-falling” anti-media consolidation screed that serves as a call-to-arms for media activists to “take back” media. But as Ahrens points out, Klinenberg fails to acknowledge the radical changes underway in today’s media marketplace that undermine his argument.
In particular, Ahrens points to the growing media DE-consolidation trend that I’ve been discussing here in my ongoing series of essays on the issue. Ahrens provides a nice summary:
Here’s a partial list of recent upheavals since [Klinenberg] wrote his book: Viacom split in two. Clear Channel is selling its TV stations and one-third of its radio stations. The New York Times sold its TV stations. The Knight Ridder newspaper chain dissolved. Tribune sold TV stations and may yet be broken up. Walt Disney sold its radio stations. Emmis Communications sold its TV stations. Wave after wave of deconsolidation.
Continue reading →
Welcome to the first episode of TLF’s new podcast! Tech Policy Weekly from the Technology Liberation Front is a weekly discussion about technology policy from TLF’s learned band of contributors. It features some of the brightest and most provocative minds in the field of technology public policy commenting on the regulation of the internet, media, privacy, intellectual property, and all things tech.
The shows’s panelists this week are Jerry Brito, Tim Lee, Adam Thierer, and PJ Doland. Topics include,
- Skype’s petition to the FCC asking for wireless net neutrality rules a la Tim Wu
- The antitrust and media implications of the proposed XM-Sirius satellite radio merger
- Is a spectrum commons really a third way between regulation and privatization?
There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. Press play on the player to listen right now, download the MP3 file, or subscribe to the podcast by clicking on your preferred service below. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Satellite radio competitors XM and Sirius have announced their intention to merge their companies in a $13 billion deal. The deal will face some obstacles at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but I think there are strong reasons for the agency to approve the deal immediately and unconditionally.
What are the consumer benefits that might arise from a satellite radio marriage? First and foremost, the survival of a vibrant and healthy satellite radio competitor is important to consumers.
Continue reading →
Terrestrial radio broadcasters and satellite radio operators (XM & Sirius) continue to square off in the marketplace but their battle in the political arena is almost as heated of an affair. Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) and Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) have reintroduced the “Local Emergency Radio Service Preservation Act of 2007.” (H.R. 983) The legislation would limit satellite radio companies to just national programming and disallow any attempt by them to provide more “localized” content, such as local news, weather, traffic and sports reports.
Supporters of the measure argue that local radio broadcasters offer “services critical to the public,” especially “in times of emergencies or disasters when other means of communications may not be available.” Moreover, because “radio is the most ubiquitous of all mass media, with receivers located in almost every home and automobile in the country” the sponsors argue that “There is a substantial governmental interest in ensuring [the] continuation” of free, over-the-air local radio services. In other words, supporters argue that terrestrial radio broadcasting is somewhat akin to a “life line” service or mass media “carrier of last resort” for some local communities.
In late 2005, I penned a study on “The Future of Radio Regulation” in which I discussed the earlier version of this bill. In my study, I argued that the best way to solve this issue is not through line-of-business restrictions on new players or technologies, but rather though the comprehensive liberalization of the traditional terrestrial radio broadcast sector to give those operators more flexability to compete in the new media marketplace without one arm tied behind their backs. I argued:
Continue reading →
Yesterday I testified before a joint House/Senate Science & Technology committee of the Georgia General Assembly. SB 59 would make it illegal for a social networking site like MySpace to give minor children access without permission from a parent. It would also give parents surreptitious access to their children’s pages.
My testimony mirrors that of Adam’s recent post detailing how industry is responding to online safety concerns. Parents and children both need to use existing resources and tools and educate themselves about online safety.
We don’t need to government to enact “regulation 2.0” to keep up with web 2.0. There are serious authentication and privacy issues implicated by the Georgia bill. We can stay safe online without new legislation.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.