What explains the rebirth of analog era media? Many people (including me!) predicted that vinyl records, turntables, broadcast TV antennas and even printed books seemed destined for the dustbin of technological history. We were so wrong, as I note in this new oped that has gone out through the Tribune Wire Service.

“Many of us threw away our record collections and antennas and began migrating from physical books to digital ones,” I note. “Now, these older technologies are enjoying a revival. What explains their resurgence, and what’s the lesson?”

I offer some data about the rebirth of analog era media as well as some possible explanations for their resurgence. “With vinyl records and printed books, people enjoy making a physical connection with the art they love. They want to hold it in their hands, display it on their wall and show it off to their friends. Digital music or books don’t satisfy that desire, no matter how much more convenient and affordable they might be. The mediums still matter.”

Read more here. Meanwhile, my own personal vinyl collection continues to grow without constraint! …

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the White House is crafting a plan for $1 trillion in infrastructure investment. I was intrigued to learn that President Trump “inquired about the possibility of auctioning the broadcast spectrum to wireless carriers” to help fund the programs. Spectrum sales are the rare win-win-win: they stimulate infrastructure investment (cell towers, fiber networks, devices), provide new wireless services and lower prices to consumers, and generate billions in revenue for the federal government.

Broadcast TV spectrum is good place to look for revenue but the White House should also look at federal agencies, who possess about ten times what broadcasters hold.

Large portions of spectrum are underused or misallocated because of decades of command-and-control policies. Auctioning spectrum for flexible uses, on the other hand, is a free-market policy that is often lucrative for the federal government. Since 1993, when Congress authorized spectrum auctions, wireless carriers and tech companies have spent somewhere around $120 billion for about 430 MHz of flexible-use spectrum, and the lion’s share of revenue was deposited in the US Treasury.

A few weeks ago, the FCC completed the $19 billion sale of broadcast TV spectrum, the so-called incentive auction. Despite underwhelming many telecom experts, this was the third largest US spectrum auction ever in terms of revenue and will transfer a respectable 70 MHz from restricted (broadcast TV) use to flexible use.

The remaining broadcast TV spectrum that President Trump is interested in totals about 210 MHz. But even more spectrum is under the President’s nose.

As Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology pointed out in 2012, federal agencies possess around 2,000 MHz of “beachfront” (sub-3.7 GHz) spectrum. I charted various spectrum uses in a December 2016 Mercatus policy brief.

This government spectrum is very valuable if portions can be cleared of federal users. Federal spectrum was part of the frequencies the FCC auctioned in 2006 and 2015, and the slivers of federal spectrum (around 70 MHz of the federal total) sold for around $27 billion combined.

The Department of Commerce has been analyzing which federal spectrum bands could be used commercially and the Mobile Now Act, a pending bill in Congress, proposes more sales of federal spectrum. These policies have moved slowly (and the vague language about unlicensed spectrum in the Mobile Now bill has problems) but the Trump administration has a chance to expedite spectrum reallocation processes and sell more federal spectrum to commercial users.

Title II allows the FCC to determine what content and media Internet access providers must transmit on their own private networks, so the First Amendment has constantly dogged the FCC’s “net neutrality” proceedings. If the Supreme Court agrees to take up an appeal from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected a First Amendment challenge this summer, it will likely be because of Title II’s First Amendment deficiencies.

Title II has always been about handicapping ISPs qua speakers and preventing ISPs from offering curated Internet content. As former FCC commissioner Copps said, absent the Title II rules, “a big cable company could block access to an investigative report about its less-than-stellar customer service.” Tim Wu told members of Congress that net neutrality was intended to prevent ISPs from favoring, say, particular news sources or sports teams.

But just as a cable company chooses to offer some channels and not others, and a search engine chooses to promote some pages and not others, choosing to offer a curated Internet to, say, children, religious families, or sports fans involves editorial decisions. As communications scholar Stuart Benjamin said about Title II’s problem, under current precedent, ISPs “can say they want to engage in substantive editing, and that’s enough for First Amendment purposes.”

Title II – Bringing Broadcast Regulation to the Internet

Title II regulation of the Internet is frequently compared to the Fairness Doctrine, which activists used for decades to drive conservatives out of broadcast radio and TV. As a pro-net neutrality media professor explained in The Atlantic last year, the motivation for the Fairness Doctrine and Title II Internet regulation is the same: to “rescue a potentially democratic medium from commercial capture.” This is why there is almost perfect overlap between the organizations and advocates who support the Fairness Doctrine and those who lobbied for Title II regulation of the Internet.

These advocates know that FCC regulation of media has proceeded in similar ways for decades. Apply the expansive “gatekeeper” label to a media distributor and then the FCC will regulate distributor operations, including the content transmitted. Today, all electronic media distributors–broadcast TV and radio, satellite TV and radio, cable TV, and ISPs–whether serving 100 customers or 100 million customers, are considered “gatekeepers” and their services and content are subject to FCC intervention.

With broadband convergence, however, the FCC risked losing the ability to regulate mass media. Title II gives the FCC direct and indirect authority to shape Internet media like it shapes broadcast media. In fact, Chairman Wheeler called the Title II rules “must carry–updated for the 21st century.”

The comparison is apt and suggests why the FCC can’t escape the First Amendment challenges to Title II. Must-carry rules require cable TV companies to transmit all local broadcast stations to their cable TV subscribers. Since the must-carry rules prevent the cable operator editorial discretion over their own networks, the Supreme Court held in Turner I that the rules interfered with the First Amendment rights of cable operators.

But the Communications Act Allows Internet Filtering

Internet regulation advocates faced huge problem, though. Unlike other expansions of FCC authority into media, Congress was not silent about regulation of the Internet. Congress announced a policy in the 1996 update to the Communications Act that Internet access providers should remain “unfettered by State and Federal regulation.”

Regulation advocates dislike Section 230 because of its deregulatory message and because it expressly allows Internet access providers to filter the Internet.

Professor Yochai Benkler, in agreement with Lawrence Lessig, noted that Section 230 gives Internet access providers editorial discretion. Benkler warned that because of 230, “ISPs…will interject themselves between producers and users of information.” Further, these “intermediaries will be reintroduced not because of any necessity created by the technology, or because the medium requires a clearly defined editor. Intermediaries will be reintroduced solely to acquire their utility as censors of morally unpalatable materials.”  

Professor Jack Balkin noted likewise that “…§ 230(c)(2) immunizes [ISPs] when they censor the speech of others, which may actually encourage business models that limit media access in some circumstances.” 

Even the FCC acknowledges the consumer need for curated services and says in the Open Internet Order that Title II providers can offer “a service limited to offering ‘family friendly’ materials to end users who desire only such content.”

While that concession represents a half-hearted effort to bring the Order within compliance of Section 230, it simply exposes the FCC to court scrutiny. Allowing “family friendly” offers but not other curated offers is content-based distinction. Under Supreme Court RAV v. City of St. Paul, “[c]ontent-based regulations are presumptively invalid.”  Further, the Supreme Court said in US v. Playboy, content-based burdens must satisfy the same scrutiny as content-based bans on content. 

Circuit Split over the First Amendment Rights of Common Carriers

Hopefully the content-based nature of the Title II regulations are reason enough for the Supreme Court to take up an appeal. Another reason is that there is now a circuit split regarding the extent of First Amendment protections for common carriers.

The DC Circuit said that the FCC can prohibit content blocking because ISPs have been labeled common carriers.

In contrast, other courts have held that common carriers are permitted to block content on common carrier lines. In Information Providers Coalition v. FCC, the 9th Circuit held that common carriers “are private companies, not state actors…and accordingly are not obliged to continue…services of particular subscribers.” As such, regulated common carriers are “free under the Constitution to terminate service” to providers of offensive content. The Court relied on its decision a few years earlier in  Carlin Communications v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company that when a common carrier phone company is connecting thousands of subscribers simultaneously to the same content, the “phone company resembles less a common carrier than it does a small radio station” with First Amendment rights to block content. 

Similarly, the 4th Circuit in Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. US held that common carrier phone companies are First Amendment speakers when they bundle and distribute TV programming, and that a law preventing such distribution “impairs the telephone companies’ ability to engage in a form of protected speech .” 

The full DC Circuit will be deciding whether to take up the Title II challenges. If the judges decline review, the Supreme Court would be the final opportunity for a rehearing. If appeal is granted, the First Amendment could play a major role. The Court will be faced with a choice: Should the Internet remain “unfettered” from federal regulation as Congress intended? Or is the FCC permitted to perpetuate itself by bringing legacy media regulations to the online world?

Adam and I recently published a Mercatus research paper titled Video Marketplace Regulation: A Primer on the History of Television Regulation And Current Legislative Proposals, now available on SSRN. I presented the paper at a Silicon Flatirons academic conference last week.

We wrote the paper for a policy audience and students who want succinct information and history about the complex world of television regulation. Television programming is delivered to consumers in several ways, including via cable, satellite, broadcast, IPTV (like Verizon FiOS), and, increasingly, over-the-top broadband services (like Netflix and Amazon Instant Video). Despite their obvious similarities–transmitting movies and shows to a screen–each distribution platform is regulated differently.

The television industry is in the news frequently because of problems exacerbated by the disparate regulatory treatment. The Time Warner Cable-CBS dispute last fall (and TWC’s ensuing loss of customers), the Aereo lawsuit, and the Comcast-TWC proposed merger were each caused at least indirectly by some of the ill-conceived and antiquated TV regulations we describe. Further, TV regulation is a “thicket of regulations,” as the Copyright Office has said, which benefits industry insiders at the expense of most everyone else.

We contend that overregulation of television resulted primarily because past FCCs, and Congress to a lesser extent, wanted to promote several social objectives through a nationwide system of local broadcasters:

1) Localism 2) Universal Service 3) Free (that is, ad-based) television; and 4) Competition

These objectives can’t be accomplished simultaneously without substantial regulatory mandates. Further, these social goals may even contradict each other in some respects.

For decades, public policies constrained TV competitors to accomplish those goals. We recommend instead a reliance on markets and consumer choice through comprehensive reform of television laws, including repeal of compulsory copyright laws, must-carry, retransmission consent, and media concentration rules.

At the very least, our historical review of TV regulations provides an illustrative case study of how regulations accumulate haphazardly over time, demand additional “correction,” and damage dynamic industries. Congress and the FCC focused on attaining particular competitive outcomes through industrial policy, unfortunately. Our paper provides support for market-based competition and regulations that put consumer choice at the forefront.

Aereo’s antenna system is frequently characterized perjoratively as a Rube Goldberg contraption, including in the Supreme Court oral arguments. Funny enough, Preston Padden, a veteran television executive, has characterized the legal system producing over-the-air broadcast television–Aereo’s chief legal opponents–precisely the same way. It’s also ironic that Aereo is in a fight for its life over alleged copyright violations since communications law diminishes the import of copyright law and makes copyright almost incomprehensible. Larry Downes calls the legal arguments for and against Aereo a “tangled mess.” David Post at the Volokh Conspiracy likewise concluded the situation is “pretty bizarre, when you think about it” after briefly exploring how copyright law interacts with communications law.

I agree, but Post actually understates how distorted the copyright law becomes when TV programs pass through a broadcaster’s towers, as opposed to a cable company’s headend. In particular, a broadcaster, which is mostly a passive transmitter of TV programs, gains more control over the programs than the copyright owners. It’s nearly impossible to separate the communications law distortions from the copyright issues, but the Aereo issue could be solved relatively painlessly by the FCC. It’s unfortunate copyright and television law intertwine like this because a ruling adverse to Aereo could potentially–and unnecessarily–upend copyright law.

This week I’ve seen many commentators, even Supreme Court justices, mischaracterize the state of television law when discussing the Aereo case. This is a very complex area and below is my attempt to lay out some of the deeper legal issues driving trends in the television industry that gave rise to the Aereo dispute. Crucially, the law is even more complex than most people realize, which benefits industry insiders and prevents sensible reforms.

The FCC, and Congress to a lesser extent, has gone to great lengths to protect broadcasters from competition from other television distributors, as the Copyright Office has said. There is nothing magical about free broadcast television. It’s simply another distribution platform that competes with several other TV platforms, including cable, satellite, IPTV (like AT&T U-Verse), and, increasingly, over-the-top streaming (like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video).

Hundreds of channels and thousands of copyrighted programs are distributed by these non-broadcast distributors (mostly) through marketplace negotiations.

Strange things happen to copyrights when programs are delivered via the circuitous route 1) through a broadcast tower and 2) to a cable/satellite operator. Namely, copyright owners, by law, lose direct control over their intellectual property when local broadcasters transmit it. At that point, regulators, not copyright holders, determine the nature of bargaining and the prices paid.

Distribution of non-local broadcast programming

Right away, an oddity arises. Copyright treatment of local broadcasts differs from distant (non-local) broadcasts. Cable and satellite companies have never paid copyright royalties for signals from a local broadcast. (This is one reason the broadcast lawyer denied that Aereo is a cable company during Supreme Court oral arguments–Aereo merely transmits local broadcast signals.) But if a cable or satellite company retransmits signals from a non-local (“distant”) broadcaster, the company pays the Copyright Office for a copyright license. However, this license is not bargained for with the copyright holder; it is a compulsory license. Programmers are compelled to license their program and in return receive the price set by the panel of Copyright Office officials.

The Copyright Office has asked Congress for over 30 years to eliminate the compulsory license system for distant broadcasts. There are few major distant broadcasters carried by cable companies but the most popular is WGN, a Chicago broadcaster that is carried on many cable systems across the country. The programmers complain they’re underpaid and the Copyright Office has the impossible task of deciding a fair price for a compulsory copyright license. Alleged underpayment is partly why TBS, in 1998, converted from a distant broadcast network to a pure cable network, where TBS could bargain with cable and satellite companies directly.

Distribution of local broadcast programming

Yet things get even stranger when you examine how local broadcasts are treated. Copyright is, as best as I can tell, a nullity when a program is broadcast by a local broadcaster and then retransmitted by a cable company. Until 1992, no payments passed from cable companies to either the broadcaster or copyright holder of broadcast programs. Congress made the retransmission of locally-broadcasted programs royalty-free. Cable companies captured the free over-the-air signals and sold those channels along with cable channels to subscribers.

Why would broadcasters and programmers stand for this? They tolerated this for decades because the FCC requires broadcasts to be “free”–that is, funded by ads. Local broadcasters and programmers benefited from cable distribution because cable TV reaches more viewers that broadcasters can’t reach.

Then in 1992, as cable TV grew, Congress decided to rebalance the competitive scales. Congress created a new property right that ensured local broadcasters got paid by cable companies–the retransmission right. Congress did not require a copyright royalty payment. So cable (and later satellite) still didn’t pay copyright royalties for local broadcasts. The “retransmission right” is held by, not the copyright owner, but the owner of the broadcast tower. This is a bizarre situation where, as the Copyright Office says, Congress accords a “licensee of copyrighted works (broadcasters) greater proprietary rights than the owner of copyright.”

Welcome to the bizarro world of broadcast television that Aereo finds itself. On the bright side, perhaps the very public outcry over Aereo means the laws that permitted Aereo’s regulatory arbitrage will be scrutinized and rationalized. In the short term, I’m hoping the Supreme Court, as Downes mentions, punts the case to a lower court for more fact-finding. Aereo is a communications law case disguised as a copyright case. These issues really need to be before the FCC for a determination about what is a “cable operator” and an “MVPD.” A finding that Aereo is either one would end this copyright dispute.

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” In this 73-page working paper, which we hope to place in a law review or political science journal shortly, we document the evolution of government-granted privileges, or “cronyism,” in the information and communications technology marketplace and in the media-producing sectors. Specifically, we offer detailed histories of rent-seeking and regulatory capture in: the early history of the telephony and spectrum licensing in the United States; local cable TV franchising; the universal service system; the digital TV transition in the 1990s; and modern video marketplace regulation (i.e., must-carry and retransmission consent rules, among others.

Our paper also shows how cronyism is slowly creeping into new high-technology sectors.We document how Internet companies and other high-tech giants are among the fastest-growing lobbying shops in Washington these days. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbying spending by information technology sectors has almost doubled since the turn of the century, from roughly $200 million in 2000 to $390 million in 2012.  The computing and Internet sector has been responsible for most of that growth in recent years. Worse yet, we document how many of these high-tech firms are increasingly seeking and receiving government favors, mostly in the form of targeted tax breaks or incentives.

We argue that the creeping cronyism could have two major negative ramifications. First, it could dull entrepreneurialism and competition in this highly innovative sector since time and resources spent on influencing politicians and capturing regulators cannot be spent competing and innovating in the marketplace. Cronyism will also negatively impact consumer welfare by denying consumers more and better products and services. Additionally, consumers might end up paying higher prices or higher taxes due to government privileges for industry.

Second, cronyism also raises the specter of greater government control of the Internet and of the digital economy. When policymakers dispense favors, they usually expect something in return. They also become accustomed to having greater informal powers over the sector receiving favors, and contribute to DC’s infamous “revolving door” problem.

High-tech America’s recent embrace of Washington could take it down the familiar path followed by the agriculture, telecommunications, and automotive sectors (among many others), with government becoming both protector and punisher of industry. Today’s dynamic tech industries will increasingly come under the “Mother, may I?” permission-based regulatory regime that encumbered the older information technology sectors.

Finally, this paper offers strategies for stalling and diminishing the cronyism already taking root in the high-tech sector. We suggest several targeted reforms to limit or undo cronyism. Generally speaking, however, we note that, as economist David R. Henderson argued in an earlier Mercatus Center report, “There is only one way to end, or at least to reduce, the amount of cronyism, and that is to reduce government power.”

The paper can be downloaded from the Mercatus website, SSRN, or Scribd. The Scribd version is embedded down below. (Also, here’s some coverage of the paper over at the Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” from our old colleague Tim Lee. Here’s more coverage from Bloomberg Businessweek and the San Francisco Chronicle. And here’s a U.S. News oped that Brent and I wrote condensing our paper into just 600 words. Finally, a short 3-minute video of me discussing the problem of tech cronyism is also embedded below.)

A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector [Thierer and Skorup – July 2013] by Adam Thierer

“All this top-40s music sounds the same.”  I think we’ve all heard this sentiment.  The nature of regional radio broadcasting almost requires a regression to the mean in musical tastes.  A radio station cannot be all things to all people.  I suspect most people will be surprised to learn that some of the most innovative radio broadcasts are taking place at hundreds of stations across the country—and only few people can listen to them.  These stations, known as low power FM (LPFM), carry niche programming like independent folk rock music, fishing shows, political news, reggae, blues, and religious programming.  (And one station in Sitka, Alaska consists entirely of a live feed of whale sounds.)

The FCC began licensing LPFM stations in 2000.  These tiny stations typically cost under $10,000 to create but by law have the power to broadcast their signals only 3.5 miles out (the typical full power FM station has a 26-mile range).  Because of their limited listening area and alternative formats, LPFM stations have small but loyal audiences.

Using traditional FCC station spacing rules, over 100,000 LPFM stations potentially could be broadcasting in the United States.  Yet, despite the FCC’s hopes of “thousands of new voices” on the airwaves, today the number of LPFM stations is less than 1,000.  To this day, there’s only one LPFM station located in a top 50 media market, where most radio audiences live.  Why, more than a decade after these stations were first allowed, are so few in existence?

When faced with the regulatory restrictions imposed on LPFM stations it’s clear why there is so much untapped potential.  Power limits aside, LPFM stations are subject to onerous ownership and advertising rules that were pushed (typically) by the progressive media groups who lobbied for them.  LPFM stations can be licensed only to local entities, and those entities cannot own more than one station.

Further—and most limiting—stations must be noncommercial.  Despite their hyperlocal appeal, LPFM stations are prohibited from running advertisements from local restaurants, churches, retail stores, and car dealers.  Constrained to relying mostly on donations and volunteer staff, few stations ever get on the air.

Several forces conspired to bring about these crippling restrictions.  The FCC has long advocated “localism” in broadcast radio, thus the local ownership restrictions.  Further, many of the activists who pushed for LPFM stations are suspicious of large commercial enterprises and wanted noncommercial mandates.  These groups envisioned a nationwide network of nonprofit cooperatives broadcasting music and news for those with alternative tastes.  They unwittingly ensured that such a development would never become reality, outside of a few rural college towns.  (It’s also ironic that most stations seem to be church-affiliated.  But what other national nonprofit organizations can run stations comprised mainly of volunteers using donations?)

Additionally, the full power FM stations we all listen to in the car saw diminishing market share in their futures if upstart companies were able to string together several LPFM stations and siphon off some of their ad revenues and audience.  When it became obvious that LPFM was going forward a decade ago, I imagine full power stations didn’t object to the FCC and the activist groups’ efforts to make LPFM noncommercial and local.

Suddenly, this year, people are excited about LPFM again.  You see, after LPFM licensing began over a decade ago, the FCC and activists quickly saw that their vision of thousands of new stations wasn’t realistic.  In light of the disappointing launch, the FCC lobbied Congress for years to expand more LPFM licensing opportunities.  In response, Congress passed the Local Community Radio Act in 2011, which only marginally expanded opportunities for LPFM licensees.  I wish new LPFM applicants the best, but I don’t think there’s any reason to be excited.

First, the impact of the 2011 law is minimal and shows the futility of the FCC playing catch up to the marketplace.  The process to approve more LPFM stations took years.  In the meantime, listeners have several platforms for instant music access, including Pandora and Spotify streaming, iTunes, Sirius-XM radio, and cloud computing music storage.  And with the increasing popularity of smartphones, it has never been easier to have personalized, portable music selections.

Still, the FCC and the Congress spent years only nibbling at the edges of the matured broadcast radio market.  The modest change in the 2011 law, recently implemented, might enable dozens or perhaps a few hundred more stations.  But when 100,000 LPFM stations is the approximate ceiling, it’s clear how little things have really changed.  The activists will blame Big Radio for limiting LPFM in Big Radio’s markets, but the blame belongs equally to the noncommercial mandates.

LPFM stations, with liberalized rules that allow them to accept commercial sponsors and band together, could provide a dynamic alternative to the current music and radio broadcast landscape.  After a decade of filings, notices, and rule changes, the FCC and the activists will have LPFM is right back where it started—small, isolated, and rare.

Writing over at the conservative Big Government blog (part of the Breitbart.com network of blogs), someone who goes by the pseudonym “Capitol Connection” has posted an editorial about the debate over retransmission consent reform that is full of misinformation and misguided policy prescriptions, at least if you believe is truly limited government. The piece is entitled, “Big Cable Would Prefer if You Paid Their Bills,” and the problems are almost immediately evident from that headline alone.  First, what is a supposedly small government-oriented blog doing using a silly label like “Big Cable” to describe a vigorously competitive sector of our capitalist economy? Using terms like “Big Cable” is a silly lefty tactic. Second, no one in the cable industry is proposing anyone “pay their bills” except for the customers who enjoy their services. Isn’t a fee for service part of capitalism?

Anyway, that’s just the problem with the title of the essay. Sadly, the rest of the piece is filled with even more erroneous information and arguments about the retransmission consent regulatory process as well as the bill that aims to reform that process, “The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act” (H.R. 3675 and S. 2008). That bill, which is sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), represents a comprehensive attempt to deregulate America’s heavily regulated video marketplace. In a recent Forbes oped, I argued that the DeMint-Scalise effort would take us “Toward a True Free Market in Television Programming” by eliminating a litany of archaic media regulations that should have never been on the books to begin with. The measure would:

• eliminate: “retransmission consent” regulations (rules governing contractual negotiations for content);
• end “must carry” mandates (the requirement that video distributors carry broadcast signals even if they don’t want to);
• repeal “network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” regulations (rules that prohibit distributors from striking deals with broadcasters outside their local communities);
• end various media ownership regulations; and
• end the compulsory licensing requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976, which essentially forced a “duty to deal” upon content owners to the benefit of video distributors.

This represents genuine and much-needed deregulation of a market that has been encumbered with far too much top-down control and micro-management by the FCC over the past several decades. To be clear, none of these rules apply to any other segment of our modern information economy. Every day of the week, deals are cut between content creators and distributors in many other segments of the media industry without these rules encumbering the process. The DeMint-Scalise bill is an attempt to get big government out of the way and let these deals be cut in a truly free market without regulators putting their thumb on the scale in one direction or the other.

Thus, it came as a bit of a shock to me to see a blog that rails against and is self-titled Big Government suggesting that we should retain a form of big government regulation! Indeed, the author gets the intent of the DeMint-Scalise bill exactly backward. The author says the The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act:

would strip broadcasters of their ability to negotiate in the free marketplace. Some cable operators, it turns out, would love to provide Americans with the quality content American broadcast companies churn out. They just don’t happen to want to pay for it.

The author of the piece also says that cable industry representatives:

are lobbying in Washington for key provisions in legislation that would that would allow the Federal government to intervene in what is otherwise a sound, private sector marketplace that benefits consumers each and every day. And they’re doing so under the guise of “deregulation.”

This is all utter poppycock. While I am sure that the cable industry would love to get all that content free of charge, that’s not what the DeMint-Scalise bill would do. It doesn’t end free-market contracting; it bolsters it. Again, the bill would get the government out of the business of setting rules for how these deals get cut and instead allow these big boys to come to the bargaining table and hammer out these deals on their own.  That is called deregulation and true capitalism!

The author of the misguided Big Government editorial seems to be resting their case on a letter that the American Conservative Union (ACU) sent to members of Congress in late March. I addressed the claims found in that letter in this essay and pointed out that ACU had almost everything exactly backward. Both the ACU letter and the Big Government essay just keep erroneously assuming that the end of the regulatory retrans process means that “broadcasters [will] be forced to simply give away their signals and content.” Again, nothing could be further from the truth. As I noted in my response to the ACU letter:

nothing in this bill forces content creators or broadcasters to deal their content to other distributors. And nothing in the bill gives those other video distributors the right to freely distribute content without the permission of its owners. In sum, the bill does not repeal copyright law — it only repeals the compulsory licensing rules that force content owners to deal their programming against their consent on government regulated terms.  That means copyright is actually strengthened under this bill and that content owners have more bargaining power than they do today. Thus, the ACU is horribly mistaken in asserting that the DeMint-Scalise bill would “allow an uncompensated use of broadcast signals and content.” The exact opposite is the case.

Finally, if nothing else convinces the folks at the Big Government blog and the ACU of the error in their thinking, consider this: The preservation of the current retransmission consent regime and all its corresponding regulations means the preservation and growth of the Federal Communications Commission as a federal regulatory agency overseeing the information economy. Is that a truly free market-oriented position? Do we need federal bureaucrats overseeing free market contractual negotiations in this or any other sector? Because that’s what the law allows today. By contrast, the DeMint-Scalise bill offers us the chance to finally get real deregulation rolling and get FCC downsizing back on track. You will never get a smaller FCC by advocating the retention of regulation.

Thus, I think it’s pretty clear which approach is the most liberty-enhancing. I hope, therefore, that the ACU and the folks at the Big Government blog will reconsider their position.

In the latest PFF TechCast, I discuss the issues considered in the second essay in our ongoing series, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media.”  In this 6-minute podcast, PFF’s press director Mike Wendy chats with me about proposals to impose taxes on broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media or “public interest” content.  In my paper and this podcast, I make the case again socially engineering media choices and outcomes through the tax code.

MP3 file: PFF TechCast #2 – Saving the Media Through Broadcast Spectrum Taxes (4/5/2010)

As mentioned last week, in a new series of essays, PFF scholars will be examining proposals that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. With many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future, Washington policymakers are currently considering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinvent themselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution. We will be releasing 6 or 7 essays on this topic leading up to our big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).  And here’s a podcast Berin Szoka and I did providing an overview of the series.

In the first installment of the series, Berin and I critiqued an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. In the second installment, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media,” I discuss proposals to impose a tax on broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media projects or other “public interest” content or objectives. Such a tax would be fundamentally unfair to broadcasters, who are struggling for their very survival in the midst of unprecedented marketplace turmoil.  Moreover, such a tax is unnecessary in light of the many other sources of “public interest” programming available today. Finally, even if the government creates or subsidizes wonderful, civic- and culturally-enriching content, there’s no way to force people to consume it.  Nor should government force such media choices upon the public. There’s no good reason for government to be socially-engineering media choices through taxes.

I’ve attached the entire essay down below.

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media

PFF Progress on Point 17.2 [PDF]

by Adam Thierer*

In an ongoing series of essays, we‘re discussing proposals to have the government play a greater role in the media sector in the name of sustaining struggling enterprises or “saving journalism.”  Washington policymakers are currently considering what, if any, role government can and should play in assisting media operators, supporting journalism, or expanding public media.  For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently kicked off a new “Future of Media” effort with a workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hosted two workshops on “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Meanwhile, the Senate has already held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat—but also curtail their political editorializing.

Part 1 of this series examined proposals to fund media content via a tax on consumer electronics, broadband service, or cell phone bills.^[1] Other essays will address proposals to tax private advertising revenues to support public media; directly subsidize out-of-work journalists; expand postal subsidies; and to prop up or bail out failing media entities.  A wrap-up essay will then focus on some potentially constructive policy reforms that could assist media enterprises without a massive infusion of state support or regulation of the press.

This essay will discuss proposals to impose a tax on broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media projects or other “public interest” content or objectives.^[2] Such a tax would be fundamentally unfair to broadcasters, who are struggling for their very survival in the midst of unprecedented marketplace turmoil.  Moreover, such a tax is unnecessary in light of the many other sources of “public interest” programming available today. Finally, even if the government creates or subsidizes wonderful, civic- and culturally-enriching content, there’s no way to force people to consume it.  Nor should government force such media choices upon the public. There’s no good reason for government to be socially-engineering media choices through taxes.

Why the “Public Interest” Regulatory Regime Can’t Continue

There’s always been a bit of mythology surrounding so-called “public interest” regulation of broadcasting in America.^[3] Those who advocate expansive regulatory obligations for licensed radio and television operators typically claim they’re directing the content or character of broadcasting toward a nobler end—a sort of noblesse oblige for the Information Age.  At times, their rhetoric takes on a fairy-tale quality as lawmakers and regulatory advocates speak of “the public interest” in reverential and fantastic terms, all the while deftly evading any attempt to define the term.  Indeed, while public interest regulation has been considered the cornerstone of communications and media policy since the 1930s, at no time during these seven decades has the term been adequately defined.[4]

Former FCC Commissioner Glen Robinson has argued that the public interest standard “is vague to the point of vacuousness, providing neither guidance nor constraint on the agency’s action.”^[5] And Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase argued 50 years ago that “The phrase… lacks any definite meaning.  Furthermore, the many inconsistencies in commission decisions have made it impossible for the phrase to acquire a definite meaning in the process of regulation.”^[6]

And that is still true today.  Simply put, the public interest standard is not really a “standard” at all since it has no fixed meaning; the definition of the phrase has shifted with the political winds to suit the whims of those in power at any given time.[7] Nonetheless, the public interest regulatory regime remains with us and continues to apply to licensed broadcast radio and television operators.

Regardless of the rationale used to advance public interest regulation—public spectrum ownership, licensing, scarcity,^[8] pervasiveness,^[9] or “public enlightenment”—it is hard to explain why we have singled out broadcasters for unique regulatory obligations while operators of other media platforms have been given a free pass.  Such regulatory asymmetry is more difficult to justify today in light of rising competition for many new platforms and players.^[10] And it is difficult to believe that Congress or the FCC could concoct a constitutionally-defensible rationale for extending “public interest” regulation to new media platforms.^[11] Indeed, efforts to do so for both old (newspapers, print) and new (Internet, video games) media have failed when tested in the courts.  And, practically speaking, even if expansion of the old regime was desirable, it would be exceedingly difficult to do so in light of the sheer scale and volume of new media that would need to be covered.^[12]

Spending Money Instead of Imposing Mandates?

The combination of these factors has forced many traditional public interest regulatory advocates to reconsider the wisdom—or at least the practicality—of the old broadcasting regime.  One alternative that has received increasing attention in recent years would see broadcasters largely relieved of their public interest obligations and charged instead an annual fee for their use of the airwaves.  The proceeds from such a spectrum fee or tax would then be used to subsidize a variety of programs or content.  For example:

• Henry Geller, a former FCC general counsel, first advocated such a spectrum fee scheme as a method of financing more public broadcasting programming.^[13]
• Likewise, Charles Firestone, executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Communications and Society Program, has argued that the scheme could fund “educational programs for children, free political spots on an equal opportunities basis, public service announcements, or other programming that the Government wants.”[14]
• American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman Ornstein has advocated that the money be spent on a “Public Square” channel to “focus on local and national politics, policy issues, debates, campaigns, and other vital issues.”^[15]
• Elsewhere, along with Paul Taylor, Ornstein has said the money raised from such fees might be spent to ensure greater election coverage or to subsidize political advertising.^[16]
• Leonard Downie, Jr., Vice President at Large of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, have advocated the creation of a “Fund for Local News” that “would make grants for advances in local news reporting and innovative ways to support it.”^[17] The Fund would make grants to news organizations through “Local News Fund Councils” and would be financed by “fees paid by radio and television licensees, or proceeds from auctions of telecommunications spectrum, or new fees imposed on Internet service providers.”^[18]
• Most recently, Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols, authors of the new book The Death and Life of American Journalism, have proposed a 7% tax on broadcasters, which they estimate would generate $3-6 billion annually.  They would use it to fund some combination of all of the above items and far more, including welfare for journalists.^[19]

A Spectrum Tax as a Regulatory Reparations Policy

We might think of spectrum tax proposals as a sort of reparations policy for the regulatory sins of the past.  That is, broadcast spectrum fees are typically pitched as a way to “repay the public” for use of the spectrum that broadcasters obtained originally at no charge.  As Charles Firestone explains, in theory, the spectrum fee proposal:

provides a specific dollar value to the trade-off that has traditionally marked the public trusteeship theory of broadcast regulation. That is, for the initial grant and/or exclusive use of a valuable frequency, protected against interference or encroachment by governmental enforcement mechanisms, the broadcaster serves the needs and interests of the local audience service area.[20]

But like the “public interest” standard itself, spectrum taxes are also an idea whose time has passed.^[21] Broadcast spectrum fees make little sense today, even if the notion might have made some sense two or three decades ago as a method of monetizing public interest obligations.

First, using spectrum fees as a reparations policy today fails to “punish” those who originally got their spectrum free-of-charge.  The vast majority of broadcast spectrum licenses have traded hands in the secondary market for lucrative sums.  In many cases, those television and radio properties have traded hands numerous times.  Thus, the current spectrum-holders who would be taxed are generally not the beneficiaries of any “windfall,” but have instead paid competitive market prices for the spectrum they use that should be roughly commensurate with the economic value of that spectrum (at least for the limited range of uses allowed by the FCC).

Second, although broadcasting remains an important medium, its once-supreme relevance has eroded significantly over the past three decades.  Even Norm Ornstein, a defender of broadcast spectrum fees, has noted that “Over-the-air broadcasting is a dinosaur.  It’s not going to last very long.”^[22] Although that might be hyperbole, it’s certainly true that whatever weight the broadcast medium might have had in the past, that is now ancient history.

For most of the past century, broadcasting was a fairly stable industry that did not witness business model-shattering types of changes.  As its very name implies, broadcasting attracted broad audiences.  Consequently, returns were stable, even substantial at times.  Today, however, stability has given way to volatility.  The entire media marketplace is in a state of seemingly constant upheaval.  Long-standing industry players are shedding assets or even disappearing as underdogs rapidly enter the sector and become big dogs overnight.  This has become a textbook example of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” in action.^[23]

Consider what this has meant for broadcasters in terms of audience share and advertising revenues.  Start with broadcast television.  The television audience has grown increasingly fragmented since the 1950s.  The top shows on TV during that era ( e.g., “I Love Lucy”) garnered 40-50% of the viewing audience.  By the 1970s, the top broadcast TV shows (e.g., “All in the Family”) were pulling in roughly 30% of the audience.  Today, however, with so many other media options vying for our increasingly scarce attention, the top shows on television (e.g., “American Idol”) are lucky to break 15% and most shows rarely break single digits.

The “problem” is growing competition for eyeballs.  Broadcasters face a growing array of rivals: cable and satellite multi-channel distributors; DVDs and Netflix; VOD and online video; video game platforms; and much more.  According to Nielsen Media Research, the “Big 3” networks of the past (ABC, CBS, NBC), which held 90% of the primetime market in 1980, control only 30% share today.  In terms of total day shares, cable blew past broadcast television at the turn of the century and never looked back.  The advertising situation is equally bleak for television broadcasters.  According to McCann Erickson Worldwide, broadcast television’s overall share of media advertising revenues dipped below 20% back in 1990 and continues to fall steadily, standing at approximately 15% today.

Unsurprisingly, the financial outlook for the broadcast TV sector is bleak.  “Almost all the indicators for local TV are pointing down,” notes the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism in its annual State of the News Media report.  It continues:

Revenue, too, was in a free fall.  Ad revenue is always lower in a year without federal elections or the Olympics, but the drop in 2009 was especially severe even with the unexpected bounty of political spending on health care legislation.  Revenues were estimated to have fallen by 22% from the year before.  The last two non-election years, by contrast, recorded much smaller declines: 5% in 2005 and 6% in 2007.  Looking ahead, most market analysts project revenues to grow only slightly, in the 3%-to-5% range in 2010, but that is hardly taken as good news given that it is a year that will include both the off-year elections and winter Olympic games.^[24]

In light of the recent turmoil, some major network television executives are now thinking about doing what was unthinkable just a decade ago: casting off their local broadcast affiliates and repurposing their content on alternative media platforms ( e.g., cable, satellite, Internet). For example, in early 2009, CBS Corp. President and CEO Les Moonves told an investor conference that moving all CBS network programming to cable and satellite platforms would be “a very interesting proposition.”^[25] If television networks start following their audience in the continuing mass exodus to alternative distribution platforms, how would local broadcast affiliates pay for a new federal spectrum fee? Even if that scenario does not develop, local television broadcasters face an uncertain future, and likely declining revenues for some time to come.

The situation for broadcast radio operators is even grimmer.  The competition for our ears has never been more intense with satellite radio, non-commercial radio, iPods and MP3 players, online radio, downloadable music, podcasting, etc. with terrestrial broadcasters for audience share.  As a result, radio operators have seen their audiences dwindle and their revenues nose-dive. According to Arbitron, time spent listening to radio has dropped for every age demographic they’ve measured for the past decade.  And BIA Financial Network notes that while the radio revenue growth rate ran between 7% and 14% during the late 1990s, the industry hasn’t seen growth above 3% since 2002 and in recent years growth has rarely broken 1%.  Furthermore, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that:^[26]

• Total radio revenue was down 18% in 2009 from 2008, according to the Radio Advertising Bureau.
• Local and national radio advertising—the biggest sources of revenue for radio—were both down and projected to continue falling at least through 2011.  There was growth in online advertising, but not enough to make up for the loss of on-air advertising.
• National and local advertising fell by 20% and 19% respectively in 2009 compared to 2008.  Local advertising has always been radio’s lifeblood.
• Online advertising revenue saw a 13% increase in 2009, but represented only 3% of industry advertising revenue and was not enough to offset the losses in other categories.
• Off-air revenues, such as billboards and concert sponsorships, fell 9% in 2009 compared to 2008, to 1.3 billion.  While these revenues currently make up only a small part of radio revenue, the continued decline of national and local advertising may add to their importance.

Again, can struggling radio broadcasters absorb the added burden of a new national spectrum tax in light of their precarious situation? Indeed, it’s numbers like these that usually leads intervention-minded analysts to advocate subsidies, not taxes, for some struggling media entities!

Where Would the Money Go?

Questions also surround the pool of funds that would be amassed through the creation of a broadcast spectrum fee.  Given the declining fortunes of the broadcast industry, it seems unlikely the fee would generate as much revenue as some proponents might imagine. Let’s assume, however, that the spectrum levy netted respectable sums.  How would those funds be used?

America’s recent experience with spectrum auction proceeds suggests that Congress would first look to use a spectrum fee to pay for federal spending priorities or pay off past budget deficits instead of channeling those funds to new “public square” or “public interest” initiatives.  But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume Congress honored a pledge to use the broadcast fee only for its intended purpose.  What exactly counts as a “public square” or “public interest” initiative, and who would be in charge of it?

Some proponents of a spectrum fee seem to long for a world in which everything looks or sounds like a combination of National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service, and cable “public access” channels.  But regardless of the quality of such networks or the programming on them, the viewing and listening public has shown a clear desire for programming of a very different nature.  While critics might lament what they regard as the “low-brow” entertainment or supposedly lower-quality news seen or heard on some commercial networks or stations, there is no denying that citizens tune in to commercial programs in very large numbers.  Whether regulatory advocates care to admit it, supply and demand are at work in America’s media marketplace and citizens vote with their eyes and ears all the time.  Media scholar Ben Compaine, co-author of Who Owns the Media?, focuses on the real issue here, choice:

If large segments of the public choose to watch, read, or listen to content from a relatively small number of media companies, that should not distract policy makers from the key word there: choose. … It may indeed be that at any given moment 80 percent of the audience is viewing or reading or listening to something from the 10 largest media players.  But that does not mean it is the same 80 percent all the time, or that it is cause for concern.^[27]

Commenting on efforts to make the modern media landscape look more like PBS or NPR, Compaine notes: “Content might well be different.  But it wouldn’t necessarily be better.… This might work only in a … world of enforced equality, where no democracy of content was allowed, where the voice of the audience was not heard.”^[28] He notes that PBS is instructive in this regard since, even in the days when it only had three primary rivals, it could rarely get the attention of more than 2% of the total TV audience.  And as television journalist Jeff Greenfield has noted, “[W]hen you no longer need the skills of a safecracker to find PBS in most markets, you have to realize that the reason people aren’t watching is that they don’t want to.”^[29]

Simply put, in a world of unlimited options and freedom of media choice, there’s just no way to force the audience to tune in.^[30] Absent truly repressive measures to limit choice or alter consumer media consumption patterns, it will be impossible for policymakers to force the masses to pay attention to what they want them to see or hear in an age of abundant media content and unrestricted choice.  “[R]egulation cannot, in a liberal democracy, force viewers to consume media products they do not think they want in the name of the public interest,” argues Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law.^[31]

Our Many “Public Squares”

More importantly, there seems to be little need for a new spectrum fee for “public interest” content or a “public square” channel in light of the explosion of civic-oriented and culturally enriching programming on both traditional and new media platforms.  In essence, we now have many “public square” channels.

For example, the growth of news channels and programs (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Current TV, many financial news networks, and more) and international news outlets (BBC America, CNN International, etc.) has been well-documented.  Most notable in this regard is the stunning success of the cable industry’s C-SPAN network and its sister properties.^[32] But these cable news channels and programs are also a growing force online as well.  “Like their television programs, the major cable news channels’ websites attracted record viewership in 2008, driven in a large part by the political and economic news of the year,” reports the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism.^[33] Moreover, these cable news sites “have also evolved into true multimedia destinations.  All now feature video archives, RSS feeds and features for accessing the sites on mobile devices.  They all offer live streaming content.”^[34] Meanwhile, C-SPAN recently created the C-SPAN Video Library,[35] which archives 23 years worth (1987-on) of fully searchable (and free) video content, including: 161,000 overall hours of programming; 56,600 hours of House & Senate floor activity; and, 20,152 hours of House & Senate committee hearings.[36]

Americans have many other ways of finding important news and civic information online.  The 2008 presidential election serves as a dramatic illustration of how voters have become better informed and how candidates have exciting new ways to connect with them.  The Pew Internet & American Life Project found that “some 74% of Internet users—representing 55% of the entire adult population—went online in 2008 to get involved in the political process or to get news and information about the election.”^[37] And President Barack Obama’s unprecedented use of new media tools during 2008 is often credited with helping to propel him into the White House.  Millions of Americans made their views known about various issues on sites such as Obama’s Change.gov website.  Wired reported that “Obama’s online success dwarfed [Senator John McCain’s], and proved key to his winning the presidency.”^[38]

Volunteers used Obama’s website to organize a thousand phone-banking events in the last week of the race—and 150,000 other campaign-related events over the course of the campaign.  Supporters created more than 35,000 groups clumped by affinities like geographical proximity and shared pop-cultural interests.  By the end of the campaign, myBarackObama.com chalked up some 1.5 million accounts.  And Obama raised a record-breaking $600 million in contributions from more than three million people, many of whom donated through the web.^[39]

Four years earlier, Joe Trippi, former campaign manager of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign and the author of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, The Internet, and The Overthrow of Everything, had noted that the Dean campaign’s heavy use of new, interactive media and communications technologies was, “a sneak preview of coming attractions—the interplay between new technologies and old institutions.  The end result will be massive communities completely redefining our politics, our commerce, our government, and the entire public fabric our culture.”^[40] He concluded: “what we are seeing—at its core—is a political phenomenon, a democratic movement that proceeds from our civic lives and naturally spills over in the music we hear, the clothes we buy, the causes we support.”^[41] President Obama’s campaign certainly seems to have been proof of that.

Of course, all this comes in addition to the stunning proliferation of user-generation media such as blogs, discussion boards, listservs, social networking sites, Twitter, You Tube, and so on.  Dan Gillmor, author of We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People, notes just how profound the impact of new media and citizen journalism will be:

Tomorrow’s news reporting and production will be more of a conversation, or a seminar.  The lines will blur between produces and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we’re only beginning to grasp now.  The communications network itself will be a medium for everyone’s voice, not just the few who can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses, launch satellites, or win the government’s permission to squat on the public’s airwaves.^[42]

Likewise, in its recent State of the News Media 2010 report, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that “Citizen journalism at the local level is expanding rapidly and brimming with innovation.”^[43] The report also noted that:

highly promising citizen and alternative sites are emerging daily.  Imaginative news formats, partnerships, formats, technological capabilities and passionate supporters of journalism values offer significant reasons for optimism as journalism continues its mission to inform citizens, make their lives better and nurture democratic processes.^[44]

Conclusion

In light of these developments, it’s hard to take seriously the charge that “deliberative democracy” is somehow on the decline in America and that the imposition of a spectrum fee to create a government-controlled “public square channel” or more “public interest” content in general would actually change the constitution of news, culture, or civic engagement in any significant way.  And even if government creates or subsidizes wonderful, civic- and culturally-enriching content, there’s no way to force people to consume it.

Finally, regardless of how spectrum fee proceeds might be spent, the proposal raises fundamental fairness issues for broadcasters.  Indeed, it is doubly insulting for them.  Not only has public broadcasting and non-commercial media been siphoning off more and more market share in recent years, but this proposal would impose a new tax on private broadcasters to fund those competitors (or some other media outlets) at a time when broadcasters are struggling for their very existence.  If Congress imposed a spectrum fee on broadcasters, it would essentially be signing a death warrant for the medium.  It’s hard to see how that’s in “the public interest.”

Related PFF Publications

• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, PFF Progress on Point 17.1, March 2010.
• Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, Adam Thierer, March 2010.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 2010.
• Chairman Leibowitz’s Disconnect on Privacy Regulation & the Future of News, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 6.1, Jan. 13, 2010.
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It, Adam Thierer, City Journal, March 2009.
• A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Adam Thierer & Brian Anderson, 2008.
• Media Ownership Proceedings, W. Kenneth Ferree, Testimony before the Federal Communications Commission, Nov. 3, 2009.
• Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership, Adam Thierer, June 2005.

[2] This essay is condensed from a chapter that appeared in a new book from Congressional Quarterly Press. See: Resolved, Broadcasters Should be Charged a Spectrum Fee to Finance Programming in the Public Interest, Pro: Norm Ornstein, Con: Adam Thierer, in Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System (2010) at 53-69.

[3] See generally Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Myths: Understanding the Debate over Media Ownership (2005) at 85-104, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/050610mediamyths.pdf.

[4] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable, Testimony Before the Federal Communications Commission Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era,” March 4, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/testimony/2010/2010-03-04-Thierer_Remarks_at_FCC_Hearing.pdf.

[5] Glen O. Robinson, The Federal Communications Act: An Essay on Origins and Regulatory Purpose, in A Legislative History of the Communications Act of 1934 3, 14 (Max D. Paglin ed., 1989). Likewise, Lawrence J. White has noted that, “The ‘public interest’ is a vague, ill-defined concept. Under the ‘public interest’ banner the Congress and the FCC have established far too many protectionist, anticompetitive, anti-innovative, inflexible, output-limiting regulatory regimes and have unnecessarily infringed on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.” See Lawrence J. White, Spectrum for Sale, The Milken Institute Review (June 2001) at 38. See also William T. Mayton, The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory Law Journal 715, 716 (1989).

[6] Ronald H. Coase, The Federal Communications Commission, 2 J. L. & Econ. 1, 8–9 (1959). Even supporters of broadcast regulation such as Paul Taylor and Norman Ornstein admit that, “neither in the 1927 [Radio] Act nor in the 1934 [Communications] Act, nor subsequently, did Congress define clearly what actions by broadcasters would represent managing their stations in the public interest.” Paul Taylor & Norman Ornstein, New America Foundation, A Broadcast Spectrum Fee for Campaign Finance Reform, Spectrum Series Working Paper No. 4, (2002) at 6.

[7] See Adam Thierer, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (2005) at 85-104; www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/050610mediamyths.pdf; Adam Thierer, Is the Public Served by the Public Interest Standard? The Freeman, Vol. 46, No. 9, Sept. 1996, at 618-20, www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/is-the-public-served-by-the-public-interest-standard; William T. Mayton, The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory Law Journal, 1989, at 715-69.

[8] See John W. Berresford, Federal Communications Commission, The Scarcity Rationale for Regulating Traditional Broadcasting: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, FCC Media Bureau, Staff Research Paper No. 2005-2, (March 2005) www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/scarcity030005.pdf. Berresford refers to the scarcity rationale as “outmoded,” “based on fundamental misunderstandings of physics and economics,” and “no longer valid.”

[9] Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting : Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007) at 431-482; http://commlaw.cua.edu/articles/v15/15_2/Thierer.pdf.

[10] See Adam Thierer & Grant Eskelsen, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace, Summer 2008, www.pff.org/mediametrics.

[11] Thierer, supra note 4.

[12] Id. at 7-12.

[13] “By taking some modest fee from commercial broadcasters for their use of the public spectrum in lieu of the public trustee obligation, noncommercial television could be adequately funded to deliver high-quality public service programming.” Henry Geller, Geller to FCC: Scrap the Rules, Try a Spectrum Fee, Current.org, Oct. 30, 2000, www.current.org/why/why0020geller.shtml. Also see Henry Geller, Promoting the Public Interest in the Digital Era, Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2003, www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no3/Geller.pdf.

[14] Charles M. Firestone, The Aspen Institute, The Spectrum Check Off Alternative to Public Interest Regulation of Broadcasters, www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/communications-society/papers-interest/-spectrum-check-alternative-public-interest-regul

[15] See Ornstein supra 2 at 61. Also see Remarks of Norman Ornstein at George Mason University event, The Gore Commission, 10 Years Later: The Public Interest Obligations of Digital TV Broadcasters in Perfect Hindsight, Oct. 3, 2008, www.iep.gmu.edu/documents/Ornstein.doc.

[16] Paul Taylor and Norman Ornstein, New America Foundation, A Broadcast Spectrum Fee for Campaign Finance Reform, Spectrum Series Working Paper #4, June 2002, www.newamerica.net/files/IssueBrief5.FreeAirTime.TaylorOrnstein.pdf.

[17] Leonard Downie, Jr. & Michael Schudson, The Reconstruction of American Journalism, Columbia Journalism Review, Oct. 20, 2009, at 92, available at www.scribd.com/doc/21268382/Reconstruction-of-Journalism.

[18] Id.

[19] See Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 209-10.

[20] Firestone, supra note 14.

[21] Adam Thierer and Wayne Crews, Cato Institute, Just Don’t Do It: The Digital Opportunities Investment Trust (DO IT) Fund, Cato TechKnowledge, No. 35, May 6, 2002, www.cato.org/tech/tk/020506-tk.html

[22] Quoted in Neil Hickey, TV’s Big Stick: Why the Broadcast Industry Gets What it Wants in Washington, Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 2002, p. 53.

[23] See Thierer & Eskelsen, supra note 7.

[24] Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Local TV, The State of the News Media 2010, March 2010, www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/local_tv_summary_essay.php.

[25] Michael Grotticelli, Local TV Stations Face Uncertain Future, Broadcast Engineering, Feb. 23, 2009, http://broadcastengineering.com/news/local-stations-face-uncertain-future-0223.

[26] Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, Audio – Traditional Broadcast and Broadcast Online, The State of the News Media 2010, March 2010, www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/audio_traditional_broadcast.php.

[27] Ben Compaine, Domination Fantasies, Reason, Jan. 2004, at 33, http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/01/domination-fantasies

[28] Id.

[29] Quoted in Thomas G. Krattenmaker and Lucas A. Powe, Jr., Regulating Broadcast Programming (1994) at 314.

[30] Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law argues: “Given the proliferation of consumer filtering and choice, these kinds of interventions are of questionable efficacy. Consumers equipped with digital selection and filtering tools are likely to avoid content they do not demand no matter what the regulatory efforts to force exposure.” Ellen P. Goodman, “Proactive Media Policy in an Age of Content Abundance,” in Philip M. Napoli, ed., Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (2007) at 370, 374.  And there is no reason to believe this situation has ever been different or will ever change. Writing in 1922, famed journalist Walter Lippmann noted that, “it is possible to make a rough estimate only of the amount of attention people give each day to informing themselves about public affairs,” but “the time each day is small when any of us is directly exposed to information from our unseen environment.” Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922), p. 53, 57.

[31] Id. at 374.

[32] Importantly, many people fail to realize that C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company that is provided as a public service by cable industry contributions. It receives no government or taxpayer contributions. From 1979-2009, total license fees paid by cable & satellite companies to support C-SPAN totaled $922 million. See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, C-SPAN, Civic-Minded Programming & Public Interest Regulation, PFF Blog, March 2, 2010, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2010/03/c-span_civic-minded_programming_public_interest_re.html

[33] Cable TV, in State of the News Media 2009, www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_cabletv_digitaltrends.php?media=7&cat=6/#key6

[34] Id.

[35] www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary

[36] See Thierer, supra note 28. See also Brian Stelter, C-Span Puts Full Archives on the Web, New York Times, March 15, 2010,  www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/arts/television/16cspan.html

[37] Aaron Smith, The Internet’s Role in Campaign 2008, The Pew Internet & American Life, April 15, 2009, www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6–The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx

[38] Sarah Lai Stirland, Propelled by Internet, Barack Obama Wins Presidency, Wired.com, Nov. 4, 2008,  www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/propelled-by-in

[39] Id.

[40] Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, The Internet, and The Overthrow of Everything (2004), at 203. [emphasis original].

[41] Id.

[42] Dan Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People (2004), at xiii.

[43] Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Introduction, State of the News Media 2010, March 2010,   www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/overview_intro.php

[44] Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Community Journalism, State of the News Media 2010, March 2010,  www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/specialreports_community_journalism.php

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 2 – Broadcast Spectrum Taxes [Thierer- PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

Today I am testifying at an FCC hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” [Speaker lineup here.] The purpose of the workshop is to explore:

• A brief history and overview of policies involving “public interest” requirements for commercial media and telecommunications companies;
• The state of local commercial broadcast TV and radio news and information; and
• The impact of media convergence and the emergence of the Internet, mobile technologies, and digital media on FCC media policy.

In my remarks, I focused on “Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable.” Down below I have attached my written remarks.

Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable

by Adam Thierer

I.       Introduction

Thank you for inviting me here today for this FCC workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” I have been asked to discuss “the impact of media convergence and the emergence of the Internet, mobile technologies, and digital media on FCC media policy”^[1] on the FCC’s “public interest” regulatory regime.

In my remarks, I will outline both the normative and practical cases against the expansion of “public interest” notions and corresponding regulatory requirements. I will argue that such considerations counsel that the Commission exercise extreme caution as it looks to revise regulations that govern America’s media marketplace.

II.     The Normative Case against Expansion of Public Interest Regulation

A.     The Inherent Ambiguity of “the Public Interest” Notion

The normative case against expansion of public interest regulation begins with the fact that this notion has always been haunted by an inherent ambiguity that is fundamentally at odds with America’s First Amendment tradition. Indeed, while public interest regulation has been considered the cornerstone of communications and media policy since the 1930s, at no time during these seven decades has the term been adequately defined.

Former FCC Commissioner Glen Robinson has argued that the public interest standard “is vague to the point of vacuousness, providing neither guidance nor constraint on the agency’s action.”^[2] And Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase argued 50 years ago that “The phrase… lacks any definite meaning. Furthermore, the many inconsistencies in commission decisions have made it impossible for the phrase to acquire a definite meaning in the process of regulation.”^[3]

And that is still true today. Simply put, the public interest standard is not really a “standard” at all since it has no fixed meaning; the definition of the phrase has shifted with the political winds to suit the whims of those in power at any given time.

B.      None Dare Call it Elitism

Still, many policymakers continue to prop up public interest notions and regulations in the belief that they are directing the content or character of media toward a nobler end. At times, their rhetoric takes on a fairy-tale quality as lawmakers and regulators speak of the public interest in reverential and fantastic terms, again, all the while deftly evading any attempt to define the term.

But the fundamental problem here is that public interest proponents assume that their values or objectives—which, in their opinion, are consistent with the needs and desires of the public—should ultimately triumph within the public policy arena. Simply stated, what motivates much public interest regulation is a simple desire by some here in Washington to tell the American people what’s best for them.

Worse yet, how the term has been interpreted and applied by the FCC has often depended on the ideological disposition of whatever party is in charge at the time.  As Ford Rowan, author of Broadcast Fairness, once noted: “Many liberals want regulation to make broadcasting do wonderful things; many conservatives want regulation to restrain broadcasting from doing terrible things.”^[4] Consequently, during periods of liberal rule, the “public interest” has been seen as a method of politically engineering more “educational” and “community-based” programming. By contrast, in the hands of conservative appointees, the public interest has been seen as an instrument to curb “indecent” speech.

Few have dared to call this elitism—but I will.^[5] What else should we call it when a five unelected officials here at the FCC sit in judgment of acceptable media content and dictate media marketplace outcomes? The viewing and listening public, however, has a broad array of interests and desires that cannot be easily gauged by this agency. As media scholar Benjamin Compaine has rightly noted, “[i]n democracies, there is no universal ‘public interest.’ Rather there are numerous and changing ‘interested publics.’”^[6]

Perhaps what some are afraid to ask is this: Does the public really want to watch what some policymakers and regulatory advocates consider to be more “culturally enriching” or “civic-minded” content, or would they rather tune into something else? Given the choice, many viewers will opt for what many public interest regulatory supporters would consider to be “low-brow” offerings over the programming that policymakers feel the masses should be consuming. Public interest supporters may bemoan the lack of civic spirit, or claim that this represents the end of our culture as we know it, but these are voluntary choices made by the citizenry that must be respected by government officials. In particular, government should not censor Americans’ choice of content through open-ended public interest regulatory rationales.^[7]

C.      There’s More “Public Internet” Content Than Ever Before, But You Can’t Force Citizens to Consume It

Generally speaking, however, the media marketplace traditionally has reflected what the public on average really wants to see and hear. And that’s even truer today. Viewers and listeners are being offered a stunning array of diverse media inputs and options. Just because the American people sometimes make choices that policymakers find distasteful, it does not mean that citizens don’t have good choices at their disposal.

For example, we are blessed to be living in the golden age of children’s video programming.^[8] As I have documented in my ongoing PFF special report on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection [9] and in other filings to the Commission,[10] there’s never been more educational and enriching kids programming available to families than there is today. Similarly, consider the stunning diversity of programming available thanks to the 500-plus channel universe of multichannel video options now at our disposal.[11] Almost every conceivable interest or hobby is now covered by a video network.^[12]

And is there really any shortage political programming or “civic-minded” content from which to choose?  C-SPAN alone covers more activity in the course of a week than most of us probably came into contact with in our entire lives just 30 years ago. Consider these data points.[13] In the 2009 calendar year, C-SPAN provided the following amount of first run programming across their three channels:

• 8,438 overall hours of programming;
• 2,709 hours of House & Senate floor activity; and,
• 1,222 hours of House & Senate committee hearings.

Moreover, C-SPAN recently created the C-SPAN Video Library,[14] which archives 23 years worth (1987-on) of fully searchable (and free) video content, including:

• 161,000 overall hours of programming;
• 56,600 hours of House & Senate floor activity; and,
• 20,152 of House & Senate committee hearings.

Importantly, many people fail to realize that C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company that is provided as a public service by cable industry contributions. It receives no government or taxpayer contributions. From 1979-2009, total license fees paid by cable & satellite companies to support C-SPAN totaled $922 million.

And let’s not forget about what the Internet has made available to us. It has given us unprecedented access to public affairs information—local, state, national, and international.

But, again, you can’t make people watch, listen, or read if they don’t want to. “Today, the scarce resource is attention, not programming,” notes Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law. “Given the proliferation of consumer filtering and choice, these kinds of interventions are of questionable efficacy. Consumers equipped with digital selection and filtering tools are likely to avoid content they do not demand no matter what the regulatory efforts to force exposure.”^[15]

Absent truly repressive measures to limit choice or alter consumer media consumption patterns, it will be impossible for policymakers to force the masses to pay attention to what they want them to see or hear in an age of abundant media content and unrestricted choice. “[R]egulation cannot, in a liberal democracy, force viewers to consumer media products they do not think they want in the name of the public interest,” argues Goodman.[16] (This dilemma creates additional practical problems for proposals to expand public interest regulation, which will be discussed in Sec. II below.)

D.     Returning to First Principles

Yet now we face the prospect of this arbitrary regulatory regime being expanding to cover more platforms and speech.^[17] But, instead of first looking to expand regulation, we should use this as an opportunity to return to first principles—especially in light of the dubious constitutionality of the FCC’s existing public interest regulatory regime.^[18]

We should begin by recalling that, from the time of the republic’s founding, public interest regulation has never been applied to newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, or books. Instead, the First Amendment has reigned supreme.[19] And when policymakers attempted to apply such public interest obligations to print media, those edicts were ruled flatly unconstitutional.^[20]

The characteristics of broadcast radio and television, however, were considered sufficiently unique to justify a different regulatory approach and second-class citizenship status in terms of First Amendment rights.  Scarcity, of course, was the lynchpin of the regulatory regime imposed on the broadcast industry, and it yielded calls for public interest regulation of the medium. But whatever one thinks of the scarcity rationale for differential treatment of broadcasting—and, personally, I don’t believe it was ever a legitimate excuse for diminished First Amendment treatment—that era of scarcity is clearly over.^[21] We now live in an age of information abundance—even information overload.^[22] We have more media options and diversity at our disposal today than ever before, and generally at falling prices.^[23] And yet, at the Commission, it continues to be business as usual.

The courts, however, have acknowledged that the situation on the ground has changed, and changed radically. When policymakers have sought to expand broadcast-like regulatory requirements to newer media platforms in recent years, the Courts have pushed back. That has particularly been the case for the Internet^[24] and video game content.^[25] The jurisprudential Twilight Zone will live in today—in which we classify services and determine free speech rights based on technical characteristics or functional features—makes no sense and can’t last for much longer for reasons discussed next.[26]

III.  The Practical Case against Expansion of Public Interest Regulation

Let’s look beyond these normative concerns and instead focus on the practical considerations associated with any effort to expand the horizons of public interest regulation.

A.     The Scale & Volume Problem

As the title of this particular panel quite rightly noted, we now live in an age of media and technological convergence.^[27] All bits are coming together.^[28] Because convergence is now upon us, media can be distributed instantaneously across numerous platforms. Thus, a regulatory attack on one type of media outlet or technology might necessitate an attack on many other media outlets if it has any hope of being effective.

But how will this work? If we are to achieve regulatory parity in an age of convergence, we must come to grips with the sheer scale of the task at hand. The modern mediasphere is massive—and growing rapidly. Consider some statistics about online media activity:

• 1.73 billion Internet users worldwide as of Sept 2009; an 18% increase from the previous year.^[29]
• 81.8 million .COM domain names at the end of 2009; 12.3 million .NET names & 7.8 million .ORG names.^[30]
• 234 million websites as of Dec 2009; 47 million were added in 2009.^[31] In 2006, Internet users in the United States viewed an average of 120.5 Web pages each day.^[32]
• There are roughly 26 million blogs on the Internet^[33] and even back in 2007, there were over 1.5 million new blog posts every day (17 posts per second).^[34]
• In December 2009, 86% of the total U.S. online population viewed video content.^[35] The average online viewer watched 187 videos (up 95 percent from the previous year), while the average video length viewed grew from 3.2 to 4.1 minutes.^[36] The majority of online video viewing (52%) occurred at video sites ranked outside of the top 25, suggesting the increased fragmentation of online video and the emergence of sites in the “long tail.”^[37]
• YouTube reports that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute,^[38] and 1 billion videos are served up daily by YouTube, or 12.2 billion videos viewed per month.^[39]
• For video hosting site Hulu, as of Nov 2009, 924 million videos were viewed per month in the U.S.^[40]
• Developers have created over 140,000 apps for the Apple iPhone and iPod and iPad and made them available in the Apple App Store.^[41] Customers in 77 countries can choose apps in 20 categories, and users have downloaded over three billion apps since its inception in July 2008.^[42] Apple’s iTunes Store has a catalog of 12 million songs, over 55,000 TV episodes, and 8,500 movies. It has sold more than 10 billion songs.^[43]
• Social networking giant Facebook reports that each month, its 400+ million users upload more than 3 billion photos, and create over 3.5 million events. More than 3 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared each week. There are also more than 3 million active Pages on the site.^[44]
• There are 10 million edits made to Wikipedia every seven weeks.^[45]

• Twitter users send out 50 million tweets per day, an average of 600 tweets per second.^[46]
• 4 billion photos hosted by Flickr as of Oct 2009.^[47]

Even in “traditional” media sectors, the scale and volume problem is formidable: [48]

• 565 cable TV channels^[49]
• over 2,200 broadcast TV stations ^[50]
• over 13,000 broadcast radio stations ^[51]
• over 20,000 magazines ^[52]
• over 276,000 books ^[53]

In sum, the mediasphere is bigger than ever and it begs the question how the FCC plans to wrap its public interest regulatory tentacles around all of it if analog era regulations are to cover digital era content, platforms, and technologies.

B.      The Definitional Problem: Who’s Covered (or Subsidized?)

Another intractable problem associated with expansion of public interest regulation will arise once policymakers are forced to define who or what counts as a “media entity” or a “journalist” in today’s wide-open media world. And this will be a problem whether public officials are regulating media entities or subsidizing them.

For example, will bloggers be regulated or, conversely, eligible for public media subsidies? Will foreign-owned news entities be regulated or be eligible for support?  What’s the public interest standard that applies to MySpace or Facebook? Are YouTube, Hulu, and Vimeo, and Joost “just like TV stations” and, therefore, regulated like one? There may well be rational ways to make cuts along these lines, but they could raise constitutional questions. Government preferences among speakers or classes of speakers are prior restraints, constitutional sins of the highest order.

Further, it would be just these sorts of choices that would open the door to the most abusive government intrusion into the production of journalism.  It is not hard to imagine that government regulators, even with the best of intentions and acting in the utmost good faith, would, perhaps unconsciously, favor speakers and classes of speakers to whom they felt the closest affinity.  And, because Administrations come and go, as do members of Congress, no particular class of speakers would ever be truly safe — no story would be reported without at least a glance by the author over her shoulder to make sure that she had not offended the “wrong” person.  This is not an approach consistent with a free press reporting to a free people.

C.      Expanded Regulation Will Kneecap Media Providers As They Are Struggling to Reinvent Themselves

Meanwhile, this inquiry comes at a time when many traditional media providers are fighting for their very existence. Audiences are fragmenting. Advertisers are fleeing. Revenues are shrinking.  And yet, again, here we are toying with the idea of expanding regulatory burdens while the media marketplace is experiencing unprecedented upheaval and gut-wrenching creative destruction.

And if the FCC’s intends to simply continue to impose public interest regulations on the narrow set of media operations they currently control—broadcast television and radio—that’s tantamount to the FCC signing a death warrant for those media operators. But, as noted below, any proposal to “spread the pain around” by burdening everyone equally is a recipe for even greater economic catastrophe, and it wouldn’t likely pass constitutional muster in the courts anyway.

This all begs the question: Do traditional media providers really have too much power, or do they actually have too little.  Indeed, the viability of traditional media operators is increasingly in doubt since they lack pricing power and the ability to control when, where, and how their content is delivered and consumed. They no longer have protected geographic markets or “protectable scarcity.” Meanwhile, advertising—the traditional lifeblood of the media sector^[54]—is increasingly being subjected to new scrutiny and regulation here in Washington.^[55] And copyright infringement has also made monetization more challenging and placed strains on many operators.  Regardless, with traditional media operators in such serious trouble, now certainly isn’t the time to impose new rules and red tape that could hamstring their ability to respond to new competitive pressures.

Perhaps the most destructive set of ideas floating around today are those that would essentially burn the village in order to save it. For example, some regulatory advocates have toyed with ideas like “public interest vouchers,”[56] broadcast spectrum taxes,[57] expanded ownership restrictions or forced media divestiture plans,[58] or even taxes on commercial advertising,^[59] consumer electronics, cell phone providers, and ISPs.[60] In each case, the cure would be worse than the disease that ails the body. We’re not going to get a more diverse media marketplace in this country by forcing private media providers to fund their non-commercial or public-subsidized competitors.  While some of these proposals are well-intentioned and aimed at addressing perceived deficiencies in the market for “public interest” content, there are better ways for policymakers to achieve that goal.

IV.  Using Existing Public Platforms to Promote Preferred Content Through a “Public Interest Portal”

Most obviously, support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) could be expanded. However, that should be achieved without skimming funds off of commercial advertising budgets or through “fees” on private media operators. Enhanced support for CPB and non-commercial media in general should be derived from general treasury funds, not special levies on commercial media operators.

If the FCC believes something more must be done to create—or drive citizens to—“public interest” or civic-minded content, the best approach would be for the agency to work with other federal and state entities and leverage existing government platforms and resources to accomplish this task.

Consider how federal agencies are already doing so in an effort to promote Internet safety and security. A dozen federal agencies and several private child safety organizations have collaborated^[61] to create the OnGuardOnline.gov website, which “provides practical tips from the federal government and the technology industry to help you be on guard against Internet fraud, secure your computer, and protect your personal information.”^[62] Among other things, the effort includes a “Stop-Think-Click” promotion that recommends “Seven Practices for Safer Computing.” In October 2009, OnGuardOnline also released a new online safety resource called Net Cetera: Chatting with Kids about Being Online . [63] This 54-page document, which is being widely distributed by the government (both online and offline), is an outstanding resource for parents and kids.

In a similar vein, the FCC could work with several other agencies to create a massive “Public Interest Portal” that aggregates and promotes the sort of the public interest programming and content that policymakers hope will gain more widespread distribution—whether produced by traditional programmers, niche professionals, or amateurs. The collaborating agencies might even be able to create a downloadable widget or toolbar for use on any web browser that could enable citizens to instantaneously access a wide variety of public interest content. Many organizations already offer similar portals for children’s content. (Examples include: KidZui,[64] Glubble,[65] Browser Buddy,^[66] KidRocket,^[67] KIDO’Z,^[68] Noodle Net,^[69] Hoopah Kidview Computer Explorer^[70] and Peanut Butter PC.^[71]) There’s no reason that model couldn’t be significantly expanded by the FCC and other government agencies if they put their resources behind it.

The success of this approach, of course, is by no means guaranteed since, as noted above, it is impossible to force a free people to consume content they do not demand.  Nonetheless, it would allow the government to at least accomplish the objective it has long sought to achieve through affirmative regulation of commercial media providers: increasing the availability and practical accessibility of public interest programming. Moreover, this approach would have the advantage of not raising serious constitutional objections or burdening commercial media operators with onerous new regulatory requirements or fees. If, however, policymakers reject this approach on the grounds that citizens would still “tune in” to other types of programming first, it would confirm the fundamental elitism that some of us have long suspected truly animates most “public interest” regulatory efforts.

V.    Conclusion: Regulate Up or Deregulate Down?

In light of the considerations addressed above, we must ask: To achieve regulatory parity, should we regulate up or deregulate down? To the extent that technological convergence leads to policy convergence, it should be done in the latter direction. In a world in which scarcity has been overthrown by abundance, we should strike the balance in favor of greater media freedom and stronger First Amendment protections for all speech however it is delivered. [72]

It is vital that the outmoded public interest rationales undergirding the broadcast regulatory regime be discarded, not only to spare broadcasters from more unfair, asymmetrical regulatory restrictions, but also to ensure that this contorted vision of the First Amendment is not extended to other media platforms.[73] While some policymakers and media critics propose extending the broadcast regulatory regime to cover new media outlets and digital technologies,^[74] if America is to have a consistent First Amendment in the Information Age, such efforts should be halted and the public interest regulatory regime should be relegated to the ash heap of history.

There are better ways for the Commission and Congress to accomplish “public interest” goals other than by regulating as if it’s still 1934.

[2] Glen O. Robinson, The Federal Communications Act: An Essay on Origins and Regulatory Purpose, A Legislative History of the Communications Act of 1934 3, 14 (Max D. Paglin ed., 1989). Likewise, Lawrence J. White has noted that, “The ‘public interest’ is a vague, ill-defined concept. Under the ‘public interest’ banner the Congress and the FCC have established far too many protectionist, anticompetitive, anti-innovative, inflexible, output-limiting regulatory regimes and have unnecessarily infringed on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.” See Lawrence J. White, Spectrum for Sale, The Milken Inst. Rev. (June 2001) at 38. See also William T. Mayton, The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory L. J. 715, 716 (1989).

[3] Ronald H. Coase, The Federal Communications Commission, 2 J. L. & Econ. 1, 8–9 (1959). Even supporters of broadcast regulation such as Paul Taylor and Norman Ornstein admit that, “neither in the 1927 [Radio] Act nor in the 1934 [Communications] Act, nor subsequently, did Congress define clearly what actions by broadcasters would represent managing their stations in the public interest.” Paul Taylor & Norman Ornstein, New America Foundation, A Broadcast Spectrum Fee for Campaign Finance Reform, Spectrum Series Working Paper No. 4, (2002) at 6.

[4] Ford Rowan, Broadcast Fairness (Longham, 1984), p. 39.

[5] See Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation?, Progress on Point 16.19, Aug. 11, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.19-unites-speech-and-privacy-reg-advocates.pdf. On occasion, even public interest regulatory advocates have admitted this. “One of the dangers in evaluating the media in a public interest framework is that it can easily take on an elitist tone.” David Croteau and William Hoynes, The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest (2001) at 151.

[6] Benjamin M. Compaine, The Myths of Encroaching Global Media Ownership, Open Democracy.net, Nov. 6, 2001, at 5, www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/87.pdf

[7] See Harry Kalven, Jr., Broadcasting, Public Policy and the First Amendment, J. L. & Econ. 15, 19 (1967) (“The mandate to grant licenses that serve the public [interest]… does not constitute the FCC the moral proctor of the public or the den mother of the audience.”)

[8] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, We Are Living in the Golden Age of Children’s Programming, Progress Snapshot 5.6, July 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2009/pdf/ps5.6-childrens-television-golden-age.pdf.

[9] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods, Version 4.0 (2008) (“PFF Parental Controls Report”), www.pff.org/parentalcontrols.

[10] Comments of The Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation In the Matter of Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape, Federal Communications Commission, MB Docket No. 09-194, Feb 24, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2010/2010-02-24-PFF-EFF_Response_to_FCC_Empowering_Parents_Protecting_Children_NOI_MB_09-194.pdf; Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Comments in the Matter of Implementation of the Child Safe Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming, Federal Communications Commission, MB Docket No. 09-26, April 15, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/041509-%5BFCC-FILING%5D-Adam-Thierer-PFF-re-FCC-Child-Safe-Viewing-Act-NOI-%28MB-09-26%29.pdf.

[11] The number of channels available on multichannel video distribution platforms skyrocketed from just 70 in 1990 to 565 in 2006, the last year for which the FCC has released data. Federal Communications Commission, Thirteenth Annual Video Competition Report, MB Docket No. 06-189, Nov. 27, 2007, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.pdf.

[12] For an up-to-date list, see National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Cable Networks, www.ncta.com/Organizations.aspx?type=orgtyp2&contentId=2907, or Wikipedia, List of United States Cable and Satellite Television Networks,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cable_and_satellite_television_networks.

[13] All C-SPAN data confirmed by Peter Kiley, Vice President, C-SPAN Networks. Also see: Marking 30 Years. Covering Washington Like No Other, www.c-span.org/30Years/default.aspx.

[14] www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary

[15] Ellen P. Goodman, “Proactive Media Policy in an Age of Content Abundance,” in Philip M. Napoli, ed., Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (2007) at 370, 374.  And there is no reason to believe this situation has ever been different or will ever change. Writing in 1922, famed journalist Walter Lippmann noted that, “it is possible to make a rough estimate only of the amount of attention people give each day to informing themselves about public affairs,” but “the time each day is small when any of us is directly exposed to information from our unseen environment.” Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922), p. 53, 57.

[16] Id., at 374.

[17] Among the expanded public interest responsibilities regulatory advocates promote: Controls on speech (indecent or “excessively violent” content); expanding coverage of political campaigns, debates and developments; free (or lower-cost) campaign ad time; expanded “educational” or cultural programming (especially aimed at children); and expanded coverage of community affairs and public service announcements.

[18] See Randolph J. May, The Public Interest Standard: Is It Too Indeterminate to Be Constitutional? 53 Fed. Comm. L. Jour. (May 2001) at 427-68, www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v53/no3/may.pdf.

[19] Jonathan Emord, Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment (1991).

[20] Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241(1974).

[21] Even FCC officials have acknowledged this. See John W. Berresford, Federal Communications Commission, The Scarcity Rationale for Regulating Traditional Broadcasting: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, FCC Media Bureau Staff Research Paper No. 2005-2, (March 2005) www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/scarcity030005.pdf. Berresford refers to the scarcity rationale as “outmoded,” “based on fundamental misunderstandings of physics and economics,” and “no longer valid.”

[22] See Adam Thierer and Grant Eskelsen, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace (Summer 2008), www.pff.org/mediametrics; Adam Thierer, The Media Cornucopia, 17 City Journal 2 (Spring 2007) at 84-89, www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html.

[23] See Benjamin M. Compaine, The Media Monopoly Myth: How New Competition is Expanding Our Sources of Information and Entertainment, New Millennium Research Council (2005) www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/Final_Compaine_Paper_050205.pdf.

[24] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 US 844, 874 (1997); American Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, 478 F.Supp.2d 775, 795 (E.D.Pa. 2007).

[25] See, e.g., Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950, 965-967 (9th Cir. 2009); Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 469 F.3d 641, 652 (7th Cir. 2006); Interactive Digital Software Association, et. al. v. St. Louis County, et. al., 329 F.3d 954 (8 Cir. 2003); American Amusement Machine Association, et al. v. Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001); Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Granholm, 426 F Supp 2d 646 (E.D. Mich. 2006); Video Software Dealers Association, et. al. v. Maleng, et. al., 325 F. Supp.2d 1180 (W.D. Wa. 2004).  See generally Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Fact and Fiction in the Debate Over Video Game Regulation, Progress on Point 13.7, March 2006, at 13-18 www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf (discussing cases striking down state video game laws); Henry Cohen, Constitutionality of Proposals to Prohibit the Sale or Rental to Minors of Video Games with Violent or Sexual Content or Strong Language, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress (Jan. 12, 2006), http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9144/m1/1/high_res_d/.

[26] Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting : Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007) at 431-482; http://commlaw.cua.edu/articles/v15/15_2/Thierer.pdf. Randy May as referred to these artificial distinctions as “techno-functional constructs.” Randolph J. May, Charting a New Constitutional Jurisprudence for the Digital Age, Engage (Oct. 2008) at 109.

[27] Henry Jenkins, founder and director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program and author of Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, defines convergence as “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want.” Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (2006) at 2.

[28] Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital (1995).

[29] Royal Pingdom, Internet 2009 in Numbers, Jan. 22, 2010, http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/01/22/internet-2009-in-numbers.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] Gavin O’Malley, Comcast Taps Hispanic Web Portal, MediaPost News, Online Media Daily, March 8, 2006, www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=40714

[33] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[34] David Sifry, The State of the Live Web, April 2007, www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000493.html

[35] comScore, The 2009 U.S. Digital Year in Review – A Recap of the Year in Digital Marketing 10, Feb. 2010, http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/2/comScore_Releases_2009_U.S._Digital_Year_in_Review.

[36] Id.

[37] Id. at 12.

[38] Ryan Junee, Zoinks! 20 Hours of Video Uploaded Every Minute!, Broadcasting Ourselves: The Official YouTube Blog, May 20, 2009, http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/05/zoinks-20-hours-of-video-uploaded-every_20.html

[39] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[40] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[41] Apple, 140,000 apps at your fingertips. From day one., www.apple.com/ipad/app-store.

[42] Press Release, Apple, Apple’s App Store Downloads Top Three Billion (Jan. 5, 2010), www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/05appstore.html.

[43] Press Release, Apple, iTunes Store Tops 10 Billion Songs Sold (Feb. 25, 2010), www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/02/25itunes.html.

[44] Facebook, Statistics, www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (last accessed Mar. 2, 2010).

[45] Katalaveno, Edit growth measured in time between every 10,000,000^th edit, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katalaveno/TBE (last accessed Mar. 2, 2010).

[46] Twitter Blog, Measuring Tweets, Feb. 22, 2010, http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring-tweets.html.

[47] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[48] Statistics derived from various sources, but all can be found in Adam Thierer and Grant Eskelsen, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace (Summer 2008), www.pff.org/mediametrics.

[49] Federal Communications Commission, Thirteenth Annual Video Competition Report, MB Docket No. 06-189, Nov. 27, 2007, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.pdf.

[50] Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book, United States, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html (data is from 2006).

[51] Id.

[52] Magazine Publishers of America, Magazines: The Medium of Action, A Comprehensive Guide and Handbook 2009/10, at 8, www.magazine.org/ASSETS/088C8564EB9E4E978A69B183881AEF58/MPA-Handbook-2009.pdf.

[53] Bowker, Bowker Reports U.S. Book Production Flat in 2007, May 28, 2008, www.bowker.com/index.php/press-releases/526.

[54] “Advertising is the mother’s milk of all the mass media,” Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg has noted. Walter Mossberg, Now You See ‘Em…, SmartMoney.com, June 15, 2000, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20061124235126/http://www.smartmoney.com/mossberg/index.cfm?story=20000615; And Harold L. Vogel, author of Entertainment Industry Economics, the definitive textbook for media market analysts, has noted, “Advertising is the key common ingredient in the tactics and strategies of all entertainment and media company business models. Indeed, it might further be said that advertising has substantively subsidized the production and delivery of news and entertainment throughout the last century.” Harold L. Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics (Cambridge University Press, 7^th Edition, 2007) at 46.

[55] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Hidden Benefactor: How Advertising Informs, Educates & Benefits Consumers, Feb. 22, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2010/ps6.5-the-hidden-benefactor.html; Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?, Progress on Point 16.2, April 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.2targetonlinead.pdf; Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Behavioral Advertising Industry Practices Hearing: Some Issues that Need to be Discussed, PFF Blog, June 18, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/06/behavioral_advertising_industry_practices_hearing.html

[56] For example, Robert McChesney and John Nichols advocate a “Citizenship News Voucher” that would give every American adult a $200 voucher to donate money to the non-profit news medium of their choice. Of course, a number of restrictions would apply to eligible entities, including a ban on accepting advertising as a condition of receiving support from the program. Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 201-6.

[57] For a recent debate on the question of broadcast spectrum taxes, see: Resolved, Broadcasters Should be Charged a Spectrum Fee to Finance Programming in the Public Interest, Pro: Norm Ornstein, Con: Adam Thierer, in Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System (2010) at 53-69. Also see McChesney & Nichols, supra 56 at 209-10.

[58] For example, Free Press calls for “government incentives to encourage local ownership and media divestiture.” They want to prevent private media operators from attaining greater scale at the exact time they probably need to do so. Instead, they would subsidize those media entities who went non-commercial and disaggregated to become more atomistic. Comments of Free Press In the Matter of News Media Workshops: From Town Crier to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age? Federal Trade Commission, Project No. P091200, Nov. 6, 2009, at 21, www.ftc.gov/os/comments/newsmediaworkshop/544505-00027.pdf.

[59] Free Press advocates channeling more money to public media by affixing “a small tax” on private commercial advertising. Comments of Free Press In the Matter of News Media Workshops: From Town Crier to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age? Federal Trade Commission, Project No. P091200, Nov. 6, 2009, at 18, www.ftc.gov/os/comments/newsmediaworkshop/544505-00027.pdf.

[60] McChesney & Nichols, supra 56 at 210-11. They advocate a 5% tax on consumer electronics and a 3% tax on monthly cell phone bills to channel money into a massive new “public works” program for the press.

[61] www.onguardonline.gov/about-us/overview.aspx

[62] www.onguardonline.gov/default.aspx

[63] www.onguardonline.gov/pdf/tec04.pdf

[64] www.kidzui.com

[65] www.glubble.com

[66] www.buddybrowser.com

[67] http://kidrocket.org

[68] www.kidoz.net

[69] www.noodlenet.com

[70] www.hoopah.com

[71] www.peanutbuttersoftware.com

[72] Brian C. Anderson & Adam D. Thierer, A Manifesto for Media Freedom (2008).

[73] See Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting : Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007) at 431-482; http://commlaw.cua.edu/articles/v15/15_2/Thierer.pdf; Adam Thierer, FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age, Engage (Feb. 2009) www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090216_ThiererEngage101.pdf.

[74] See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Thinking Seriously about Cable and Satellite Censorship: An Informal Analysis of S. 616, The Rockefeller-Hutchison Bill (2005) www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop12.6CableCensorship.pdf; Robert Corn-Revere, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Can Broadcast Indecency Regulations Be Extended to Cable Television and Satellite Radio? (2005) www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop12.8indecency.pdf.

Adam Thierer (PFF) Remarks at FCC Hearing on Public Interest in Digital Era (3-4-10) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

I testified this morning in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet at a hearing titled, “An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal.” Among those testifying were Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts, and NBC Universal President and CEO Jeff Zucker.  Down below I have attached my brief remarks (we only had 5 minutes), but see the Scribd doc at the very bottom to also see the embedded charts. I also wrote a paper about the proposed deal back in December entitled, “A Brief History of Media Merger Hysteria: From AOL-Time Warner to Comcast-NBC” as well as this editorial for Forbes.

____________

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Adam Thierer and I am the President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF).

Although we are still early in this process, there has already been a great deal of hand-wringing and even some dire predictions about the pending merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. I hope to put this proposed marriage in some historical context and explain why the deal certainly won’t have the detrimental impact some critics fear, and also explain why it might even be one potential model for how to sustain traditional media going forward.

Beware Media Merger Hysteria

First, let’s remember that we’ve been here before. Paranoid predictions of a media apocalypse have accompanied the announcements of many previous media mergers, from AOL-Time Warner to News Corp.-DirecTV to XM-Sirius.[i] In these cases and almost all others, however, the “sky is falling” claims proved to be greatly overstated.[ii] The only “harm” that one could reasonably claim came from those mergers was not to consumers or content providers, but to the merging firms themselves and their shareholders. That’s because many mergers simply fail to create the sort of synergies and benefits originally hoped for and consequently die of natural causes over time.

Other firms, however, have found ways to make deals work and deliver important new services that previously were unimaginable or simply too expensive to offer alone.[iii] Regardless, the point here is that we’ll never know what works unless we permit marketplace experimentation with new and innovative business models.

“Gatekeeper” Myths: Why Restricting Content Options is Economic Suicide

Second, the fear that Comcast-NBCU will act as a “gatekeeper” over video content is also largely overblown—especially in light of the preemptive concessions they have already made on program access and carriage. But it’s important to realize that the merger will only marginally affect vertical integration in the cable marketplace. Currently, the percentage of cable channels owned by video distributors is in the single digits, and even after this merger it will only be in the teens.[iv] (See Exhibit 1) Stated differently, the vast majority of cable channels will be independent of Comcast-NBCU control.

More importantly, it’s hard to believe the new firm would restrict its content to just Comcast-owned distribution networks since they would be losing the eyeballs, advertisers, and revenues that would accompany the carriage of their content on other video platforms. Likewise, it would make little sense for the firm to block new or competing channels on their own platform since they would incur the wrath of the programmers and the viewing public alike. And those channels will likely quickly find a home elsewhere, which could incentivize subscribers to switch video service providers. (See Exhibits 2-6)

Indeed, the great thing about the modern media marketplace is that there is always another place for consumers to turn to find what they want. Comcast faces increasingly robust competition in the video programming marketplace from satellite and telco providers, as well as from Internet-based video providers.^[v] (See Exhibit 7) And NBC Universal’s stable of programming, while impressive, is a mere trickle in an ocean of content that consumers can choose from.^[vi]

Meanwhile, many consumers are increasingly “cutting the cable cord” altogether and instead getting the video they want from a bewildering array of online video services.[vii] Netflix, Hulu, Joost, Roku, Apple, the Sony PlayStation Store, the Microsoft Xbox store, and others offer traditional TV fare while sites like YouTube, Vimeo and Justin.TV offer a mix of professional and amateur content.

In sum, there has never been so much competition for our eyes and ears, and audiences and advertising dollars have become increasingly fragmented as a result.[viii] (See Exhibits 8-10)

What Future for Broadcasting & Local News in Turbulent Times?

Finally, we need to realize that the ongoing digital revolution is upending many traditional media business models—especially advertising supported over-the-air broadcasting—and that alliances like Comcast-NBCU may be one blueprint for how traditional media operators can evolve and compete going forward.  With both the FCC and FTC currently investigating whether journalism is in trouble and what it might take to “save the news,” many media economists and industry analysts seem to agree that at least some degree of consolidation or collaboration might be necessary.

Consider last week’s news that NBC Universal saw quarterly profits plunge by a whopping 30% in the fourth quarter of 2009.[ix] This is indicative of the general downturn the entire media sector has been experiencing as of late.  Why not then let Comcast help NBCU try to get back on track rather than force them to make it on their own in a radically uncertain future?  And it goes without saying that Comcast might be better positioned to protect NBC Universal’s copyrighted content from digital piracy, at least over its own pipes.

Those who are concerned about the future of broadcasting and local news should remember that news—and local broadcast news in particular—isn’t cheap. Unless we want to embark on a massive government subsidization scheme to bailout traditional media providers, Congress and regulatory officials must be willing to grant private media operators the flexibility to restructure their business affairs so they can continue to provide important public needs while also turning a profit.[x] That can’t happen unless we allow media markets to evolve and let operators experiment with new business models and ownership structures.[xi] Although there are no guarantees, creator/distributor alliances like Comcast-NBCU may be one model that helps firms create, extend, and then also monetize their media content.  But, again, regulatory flexibility is crucial so we can figure out what works and what doesn’t.

Thank you again for inviting me here to testify.

[ii] Adam Thierer, A Media Morality Play, Forbes, Dec. 15, 2009, www.forbes.com/2009/12/14/media-merger-antitrust-opinions-contributors-adam-thierer.html

[iii] A good example: Disney’s seamless and successful integration of ABC Television Group (ABC + Disney cable properties), Walt Disney Studios, the Walt Disney Internet Group, its many ESPN properties, and its parks and resorts.

[iv] 2006 is the last for which the FCC has made data available, but as of that time the overall number of national programming networks available in America stood at 565 channels. That is up from just 70 channels in 1990, an astonishing increase in program choices.  The FCC noted that, “Of the 565 networks, 84 (14.9 percent) were vertically integrated, or affiliated, with at least one cable operator.” Federal Communications Commission, FCC Adopts 13^th Annual Report to Congress on Video Competition and Notice of Inquiry for the 14^thAnnual Report, Nov. 27, 2007, at 4, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278454A1.pdf What that summary fails to mention, however, is that vertical integration has fallen steadily since the FCC’s first Annual Video Competition Report was issued, when over 50 percent of all channels were affiliated with a cable operator. Indeed, the video marketplace exhibits less vertical integration than ever before. As far as vertically integrated industries go, no impartial observer would conclude that this industry is being controlled by “gatekeeper,” pay TV platforms, as some critics suggest. Most new pay TV channels today are independently owned and offer an unprecedented diversity of programming options. This trend is a strong sign of how healthy and vibrantly competitive this marketplace is today. Finally, these numbers do not take into account the split between Time Warner Entertainment and Time Warner Cable, which represented a significant portion of the 15% of vertically owned channels before 2006. That is the percentage of cable channels owned by video distributors is in the single digits today.

[v] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Video Competition in a Digital Age, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Oct. 22, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/testimony/2009/10-22-09-thierer-testimony-video-competition-digital-age.pdf

[vi] Adam Thierer, The Media Cornucopia, City Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 2007, at 84-89, www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html

[vii] See generally The Progress & Freedom Foundation, “Cutting the Video Cord,” PFF Blog Ongoing Series, http://blog.pff.org/archives/ongoing_series/cutting_the_video_cord/

[viii] Adam Thierer and Grant Eskelsen, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace, PFF Special Report, Summer 2008), www.pff.org/mediametrics

[ix] David B. Wilkerson, NBC Quarterly Profit Plunges 30%, MarketWatch, Jan. 22, 2010.

[x] W. Kenneth Ferree, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Another Naïve Proposal for Government Entanglement with the Fourth Estate, PFF Blog, Feb. 1, 2010, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2010/02/another_naive_proposal_for_government_entanglement.html;  Adam Thierer, Socializing Media in Order to Save It, City Journal, March 27, 2009, www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0327at.html; Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Progress Snapshot 6.4, Jan. 25, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2010/ps6.4-OP-ED-for-Daily-Caller-A-Public-Option-for-the-Press.html

[xi] W. Kenneth Ferree, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Ownership Proceedings, Testimony before the Federal Communications Commission, Nov. 3, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/testimony/2009/11-03-09-ferree-media-ownership-testimony.pdf; Adam Thierer, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (The Progress & Freedom Foundation, 2005), www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/050610mediamyths.pdf

Testimony of Adam Thierer – House Hearing about Comcast-NBC Merger 2-4-10 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

PFF has just released the transcript of an excellent panel discussion I moderated last week entitled, “Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum.”  As I’ve mentioned here before, one of the hottest issues in DC right now is the question of broadcast TV spectrum reallocation.  Blair Levin, who serves as the Executive Director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission, recently raised the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. Such a “cash-for-spectrum” swap would give mobile broadband providers to spectrum they need to roll out next generation wireless broadband networks while making sure broadcaster receive compensation for any spectrum they hand over.  The FCC just recently released a public notice on “Data Sought on Users of Spectrum,” (NBP Public Notice # 26) that looks into the matter. “This inquiry,” the agency says,” takes into account the value that the United States puts on free, over-the-air television, while also exploring market-based mechanisms for television broadcasters to contribute to the broadband effort any spectrum in excess of that which they need to meet their public interest obligations and remain financially viable.” Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee is set to hold a hearing on the issue next Tuesday.

PFF’s panel discussion on this issue featured an all-star cast of characters, including opening remarks by Blair Levin, and a terrific discussion ensued. [You can hear the full audio from the event here.]  Down below I have highlighted some of the major points each speaker made during the discussion and also embedded the complete transcript in a Scribd reader.  Also, just a reminder that my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin and I authored a short paper on this issue recently: “An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector.”

• Blair Levin, Executive Director of the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative, began the discussion by describing how additional spectrum will be needed to expand wireless broadband and why spectrum currently held by broadcasters would be a good option.  In addition to identifying spectrum that has the technical qualities to support broadband, he explained, “You also would look at things like where there’s an economic gap between the current use and potential wireless use.  You would want to look at bands where maybe there are regulations which constrain the market mechanism.  You also might want to look at bands where you can have a meaningful reallocation of spectrum while, nonetheless, preserving current uses.”
• Coleman Bazelon, Principal at The Brattle Group, presented findings from his recent paper on the value of spectrum currently held by broadcasters if it was reallocated to commercial mobile or wireless broadband uses. “This analysis shows that there are significant gains from reallocating the broadcast band, and I think the takeaway should be that there are significant gains, not that its $42 billion or $51 billion, but that its tens and tens of billions of dollars,” Bazelon stated.
• David Donovan, President of the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., questioned the estimates of the additional value of broadcast spectrum that could be gained if it was auctioned for other uses.  “If you are valuing over the air television broadcasting and its importance to the American public, using a snapshot based on an auction valuation at a particular point in time is really highly inappropriate,” he stated. “The business model of broadcasting is heavily regulated. … and that defines, of course, the value, just like heavy zoning defines the price of land.”
• Kostas Liopiros, Principal of The Sun Fire Group, discussed the technical feasibility of using various blocks of spectrum for wireless broadband use.  “Only additional spectrum can produce the required gains of capacity in the future, but if the gains capacities are oriented towards wireless broadband, for national wireless broadband capability, you need to focus on the right type of spectrum,” he explained.
• John Hane, Counsel in the Communications Practice Group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, warned of the legal difficulties of modifying broadcast licenses.  “Extinguishing licenses requires a hearing, potentially hundreds of them, each one affecting one or more Congressional districts.”  Although the FCC is able to modify a license without the licensee’s consent, he continued, “that is a very long and complicated process with an uncertain time frame.  If there really is a spectrum crisis, the stick approach …is not going to solve it very fast.”
• Paul Gallant, Senior Vice President of Concept Capital, discussed the possible effects of Congress involvement in auction of broadcast spectrum.  If broadcasters are reluctant to modifying their business model, Gallant explained, it might be beneficial for them to have Congress involved in such a deal.  However, he warned that Congressional involvement could also result in uncertainty for the broadcasters.  “It is not clear, if Congress does pass a bill, whether broadcasters come out better or worse than they would if they had worked something out with the FCC.  The main reason is there is tremendous budget pressure in Congress today.  They are looking for new sources of revenue,” Gallant explained.
• Andrew Jay Schwartzman, President and CEO of Media Access Project, expressed that he was resistant to the idea of auctioning spectrum.  “It isn’t property,” He stated.  “They favor incumbents.  They’re rigged.  They don’t generate the revenues that OMB and Congress seem to think they will.” He also warned of the possible impact of auctions on innovation. “Auctions lock in existing technology and near-term foreseeable technology. The people who are able and willing to bid are basing it on technology that they know they can generate and that does not allow the spectrum to be used in better ways coming down the road.”

Transcript of Dec 1 PFF Event on Broadcaster TV Spectrum Reallocation [PFF – Thierer] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=23980532&access_key=key-wdpoolnrm5gxq1xu7c6&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

In a recent PFF paper I argued that “We Are Living in the Golden Age of Children’s Programming,” and showed how, despite incessant complaints by many policymakers:

the overall market for family and children’s programming options continues to expand quite rapidly. Thirty years ago, families had a limited number of children’s television programming options at their disposal on broadcast TV. Today, by contrast, there exists a broad and growing diversity of children’s television options from which families can choose.

I then documented there and in my book, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection:

• the many excellent family- or child-oriented networks available on cable, telco, and satellite television today;
• the growing universe of religious / spiritual television networks;
• the many family or educational programs that traditional TV broadcasters offer; or
• the massive market for interactive computer software or Internet websites for children.

And every time I turn around I find another great show, service, or site for families to choose from.  Earlier today I highlighted the excellent new online video search service, Clicker.com, which is essentially a “TV Guide for the Internet.”  It is absolutely awesome and I highly recommend you play with it. You’ll be instantly hooked if you are TV junkie.

Better yet, Clicker.com offers a wonderful compendium of kid- and family-oriented video programming options. Although the site is still fairly new, you can already find 660 shows and almost 5,000 unique episodes of kids programming there.  A lot of it is just good ‘ol fashion couch potato fare ranging from the old (The Jetsons, Fat Albert, The Flintstones, etc) to the new stuff that you’d find on various cable channels today.  But there’s also plenty of wonderful educational programming to be found on Clicker including shows like Arthur, Sesame Street (over 1,000 episodes), Martha Speaks, The Electric Company, Animal Exploration with Jarod Miller, Jonathan Bird’s Blue World, Postcards From Buster, Science on Brain Pop, Technology on Brain Pop, and more.

Although my kids aren’t really into TV, as they grow older, I bet they’ll be watching a lot more programming via services like Clicker.  Currently, my kids enjoy watching snippets of video via kid-oriented online search portals like KidZui and Glubble.  Such online walled gardens offer a safe place for parents to find terrific online content for their kids.   Bottom line: compared to the miserable state of affairs some of us faced growing up in the 1970s, kids and parents have never had it better in terms of the video programming options at their disposal.

Anyway, some of “kid-vid” issues — including potential expansion of the Children’s Television Act of 1990 — could be up for discussion in the FCC’s new proceeding, “Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape” (MB Docket 09-194).  The FCC just tweeted about it here and I posted my thoughts on where the agency might be heading in this proceeding in this post last month.

It’s truly amazing how fast mobile broadband demand is expanding. A couple of things caught my eye yesterday that really drove that home.  First, I was reading Bernstein Research’s weekly (subscription-only) newsletter and Craig Moffett, one of America’s top media and communications analysts, summarized the growing mobile bandwidth crunch as follows:

To fully grasp the challenge facing wireless providers as we make the transition from wireless voice to wireless data, it is helpful to put some ballpark numbers around current usage levels. Today, the average voice-only customer consumes something like 50 megabytes of data every month. For that, they pay about $40, or about $0.80 per megabyte. That’s 70% of wireless industry revenues. Text messaging generates another $10 per month for a minuscule amount of data (in fact, arguably no throughput at all, since text messaging travels in a signaling band rather than in the carrier band itself). Let’s call it $1,000 per megabyte. That’s another 15% of industry revenues. On a blended basis, then, that’s $1.00 per megabyte for 85% of industry revenues. And then there’s the iPhone. By some estimates, the average iPhone user consumes as much as 800 megabytes per month. Take out their 50 Mb for voice and you’re looking at 750 Mb of data… for an additional $30. For the mathematically challenged, that’s a princely sum of… wait for it… four cents per megabyte. Worse, we noted that the FCC’s wireless net neutrality policies posed the risk of “bandwidth arbitrage,” where low bandwidth services (at $1.00 per megabyte) would be replaced with free or almost free applications that ride on $0.04 per megabyte data plans, and where carriers’ hands would be tied to prevent it. Taking a business that is currently getting $1.00 per megabyte down to just $0.04 per megabyte is, well, hard. And lest anyone think that this threat is idle fear-mongering, Google’s acquisition last week of Gizmo5, a wireless VoIP specialist, should give one pause.

Those are stunning numbers. And then I saw this new filing by CTIA listing some other statistics about growing mobile broadband demand:

According to the FCC’s most recent data, there were over 59 million mobile wireless high speed lines.

In addition, mobile wireless broadband growth continues to outpace every other broadband platform, with net additions between December 2007 and June 2008 greater than those of DSL and cable modem combined.

Mobile data and Internet traffic will increase 66 times between 2008 and 2013;

By 2010, “mobile broadband penetration will surpass fixed penetration globally.”

The simple task of watching a YouTube video consumes 100 times the bandwidth of a voice call.

The mobile data traffic footprint of a single mobile subscriber in 2015 could very well be 450 times what it was in 2005.

These projections are consistent with mobile broadband providers’ experiences to date. For example, AT&T noted that its wireless data traffic has increased nearly 5,000 percent in the past quarters and other carriers have likewise reported dramatic increases. Similarly, since T-Mobile began offering its G1 smartphone, customers of that device use, on average, 50 times the data of the average T-Mobile customer.

For these reasons, CTIA and others are calling on the federal government to find more spectrum to meet these growing mobile broadband needs.  The question is: Where to find it?  The military is one answer, but good luck getting them to budge and return any of their current spectrum holdings for reallocation.  Thus, as Barbara Esbin and I noted in a recent PFF paper, a lot of people are turning to the broadcast TV sector and hoping to find a way to make a cash-for-spectrum deal with them to get some (or all) of their spectrum back. But it may be unlikely many broadcasters will be willing to hand back their spectrum for alternative uses, even if the cash offer was generous.  Plus, Congress would have to bless any such deal, which raises another set of sticky political issues.

PFF will be hosting a debate about these issues on Tuesday, December 1st at 9am at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  The event is called, “Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum.”  Seating is limited, so reserve your spot now by RSVPing here. We’ve got a terrific lineup for the event, including:

• Blair Levin, Executive Director, Omnibus Broadband Initiative, Federal Communications Commission
• Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group
• David Donovan, President, Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.
• Paul Gallant, Senior Vice President, Washington Research Group
• John Hane, Counsel, Communications Practice Group, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
• Kostas Liopiros, Principal, The Sun Fire Group

As I noted in a recent paper with my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin (“An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector“) an official at the Federal Communications Commission (Blair Levin) recently suggested that it might be possible to craft a grand bargain whereby television broadcasters get cash for some (or all) of their current spectrum if they return it to the FCC for reallocation and auction.  Such a deal could, eventually, open up significant amounts of prime spectrum for next-generation mobile broadband and data services.

Is such a deal feasible and in the best interests of broadcasters?  Is the arrangement necessary to encourage growth in broadband penetration consistent with the goals of the Recovery Act?  Will Congress go along with the deal, or would it be blocked as contrary to “the public interest?” Alternatively, would lawmakers back the deal but seek a significant cut of the auction proceeds, leaving less available for broadcasters?  These and other policy issues will be discussed at “ Let’s Make a Deal:  Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum,” a congressional seminar hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. The event will be held Tuesday, December 1st from 9:00am to 11:00am in the Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW in Washington, DC.

Panelists confirmed so far for the event include:

• Blair Levin, Executive Director, Omnibus Broadband Initiative, Federal Communications Commission
• Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group
• David Donovan, President, Association for Maximum Service Television
• Kostas Liopiros, Principal, The Sun Fire Group
• John K. Hane, Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
• and 1 or 2 more to come!

I will be moderating the event.  Those interested in attending can register here.  Should be a spirited debate.

Along with my colleague Barbara Esbin, the Director of PFF’s Center for Communications and Competition Policy, I have just released a new paper on discussing the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. As I discussed here before, Blair Levin, the Executive Director of the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative, has been suggesting that it might be possible to craft a grand bargain whereby broadcasters get cash for some (or all) of their current spectrum allocations if they return spectrum to the FCC for reallocation and re-auction, likely to mobile broadband services.

In our paper, “An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector,” [PDF] Barbara and I argue that:

the benefits of such a deal could be enormous for wireless broadband providers, developers of digital technologies, and consumers.  Expanding the pool of spectrum available for next-generation wireless broadband offerings will ensure that innovative new networks, devices, and services are made available to the public on a timely basis.  Ultimately, that will mean more high-speed choices for consumers, especially those in rural areas harder to reach with high-speed wireline networks.  Finally, more generally, anything that moves us in the direction of a freer market in spectrum is a good thing. But fairness to broadcasters lies at the heart of this spectrum reallocation plan. If a deal can’t be structured that broadcasters would find acceptable, they should not be forced to come to the table. When we speak of an offer they can’t refuse, we mean one so attractive that no rational businessperson or investor would pass it up. It is essential broadcasters be willing partners in the deal, and be full participants in the process of shaping its contours.

Read the entire thing here, or below the fold as a Scribd document.

Broadcast TV Spectrum Reallocation (Thierer & Esbin – PFF) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=22365493&access_key=key-2cs1sry5qv9xd3x6d5bv&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

Potentially huge FCC development here, and one they actually has some sense to it. According to Kim McAvoy over at TV News Check.com:

FCC broadband czar Blair Levin earlier this month met with leading TV broadcasters in Washington to discuss the nation’s urgent need for more spectrum for wireless broadband access to the Internet and the possibility of broadcasters’ relinquishing most of their spectrum to help meet that demand. According to sources familiar with the Oct. 8 meeting with the board of the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV), Levin suggested broadcasters might want to consider returning their spectrum in exchange for a share in the billions of dollars that would come from the auction of the spectrum to the wireless industry. Broadcasting would retain just enough spectrum so that each station could provide a lifeline standard-definition service to the millions of TV viewers who still rely on over-the-air reception. Broadcasters could no longer offer over-the-air HD and second channels and mobile video would be off the table, but they could continue to provide a single channel of TV to every home in their markets as they do today — in full-blown HD via cable and satellite carriage and SD via the over-the-air lifeline service.

Wow, this is a very big deal, folks, since we are talking about a mother lode of prime spectrum that could be put to any variety of excellent alternative uses.  The problem is, broadcasters will—rightly, in my opinion—protest that they have occupied that spectrum for a long, long time and they have something akin to a property right in their allocations. Of course, paying them to relocate might be a very sensible way to get them off that spectrum voluntarily. But the question is whether they should be forced off of it and whether that is even legal.  No doubt, any attempt to force them off would be held up in court for many years because of inevitable legal challenges.

There is another solution: Just give the broadcasters a full, unencumbered property right in their spectrum and let them sell it or use it however they wish. Some will protest that it’s not “fair” and that the broadcasters should never be given a property right in something they did not pay for to begin with. Yet, at some point we have to stop the endless search for what I have referred to as a “spectrum reparations policy” and just get on with life.

I think everyone can now agree that the old command-and-control regulatory regime for “zoning” spectrum has retarded innovation. Imagine if we told Apple back in the 1980s that, because they started in the PC business, they could never leave the PC business and offer other innovations.  That would have been nuts! We’d never have the iPhone today. But that’s U.S. spectrum policy for broadcasting in a nutshell.  As a broadcaster, it is illegal for you to repurpose your spectrum for alternative uses.  Stated different, spectrum innovation is a crime.  How pathetic.

It’s time to change the rules and move forward.  I applaud Blair Levin and the FCC for offering at least one solution, but if it doesn’t work, we should try the other: property rights and flexible use rights in spectrum. And here are 4 or 5 other ways to get the job done.

Whatever you think about this messy dispute between AT&T and Google about how to classify web-based telephony apps for regulatory purposes — in this case, Google Voice — the key issue not to lose site of here is that we are inching ever closer to FCC regulation of web-based apps!  Again, this is the point we have stressed here again and again and again and again when opposing Net neutrality mandates: If you open the door to regulation of one layer of the Net, you open up the door to the eventual regulation of all layers of the Net.

You might not buy that story initially but if you doubt it then I invite you to read just about any history of American broadcast media regulation over the course of the past seven decades. (You might want to start with Krattenmaker & Powe’s Regulating Broadcast Programming or Jonathan Emord’s Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment). In such histories you will find a common theme: Once regulation of media and communications platforms gets underway, the natural progression of things is uni-directional — Up!  That is, when new questions arise about how to “deal with” a new service, network, platform, or technology, the general tendency is the “regulate up” instead of “deregulating down.”  When regulators are given a greater say about the contours of markets as technologies evolve and/or converge, we shouldn’t be surprised that their first instinct is to “bring them into the fold.”

And, sadly, that is exactly what is likely to occur eventually with Google Voice. The only really interesting question is what else regulators start mucking with in the search and applications layer once they get their hands on it.  And if you still insist that I am being overly paranoid about “regulatory creep” and the prospect of the FCC gradually transforming into the Federal Information Commission, then consider what the agency had to say about cloud computing in paragraph 60 (pg. 21) of the FCC’s recent Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry, which was launched on August 27th:

As other approaches, such as cloud computing, evolve, will established standards or de facto standards become more important to the applications development process? For example, can a dominant cloud computing position raise the same competitive issues that are now being discussed in the context of network neutrality? Will it be necessary to modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces to promote further innovation in the development and deployment of new applications and services?

Wow, who knew that the FCC even had the authority to oversee or regulate the cloud, right?  Well, they don’t. But, again, this is exactly how things have unfolded before: Throw statutory authority to the wind and slowly start extending the agency’s regulatory tentacles into new areas, services, technologies, platforms, and networks.  In this case, you can just imagine how some folks will use that FCC language to accuse Google of being in “a dominant cloud computing position” such that “the context of network neutrality” will be applied to cloud service (like Google Voice!) to “modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces.”  Indeed, that’s pretty much what AT&T is suggesting in their letter to the FCC this week.

In a post yesterday over at the Google Public Policy Blog, my old friend Rick Whitt of Google insists that Google Voice is different than a traditional common carrier telecom service and that it doesn’t belong in the same regulatory bucket as those older voice services.  To Rick and my other friends at Google, I have only one thing to say about that argument: Good luck with that!  My prediction: Within two to three years you’ll be under the FCC’s thumb.

Again, I very much hope I am proven wrong. But I know that I won’t be wrong because neither side is going to back down in the escalating net neutrality war of mutually assured destruction.  “Regulating up” will carry the day and become, once again, our new telecom M.A.D. policy.

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing yesterday where a number of Senators as well as Julius Genachowski, the new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, did a lot of fretting about the state of the modern children’s television programming marketplace.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV):

suggested that a “little red button” be required on TVs so that a child could push the button to find out how a show is rated. Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas agreed that a red button might help since parents often have difficulties figuring out which shows are appropriate for their children to watch.

Well, I have some good news for the Senators: There are already quite a few little buttons on every remote control made today, and at least one of those buttons can pull up an on-screen guide to get more program info! (Another of them can turn the TV off!) Moreover, the ratings for just about every program already appear at the beginning of each show, and sometimes in between. And you can find out plenty more online about every TV show under the sun if you care to look.  So, I’m not sure what that fuss is all about, and we certainly don’t need to mandate “little red buttons” on every TV set when program information can be found in so many other ways.

What is more troubling about all the hand-wringing taking place at the hearing, as well as the talk of reopening the Children’s Television Act of 1990 to potentially impose more content mandates on video programmers and distributors, is that: (1) there doesn’t seem to be much appreciation for just how much wonderful children’s programming is out there today compared to the past, and (2) there doesn’t seem to be much recognition of the serious First Amendment issues at stake when government gets involved in the messy business of regulating video programming.

On that first point, let me just reiterate what I have found after conducting an exhaustive survey of the market for children’s programming in my ongoing PFF special report, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.  I found that the overall market for family and children’s programming options continues to expand quite rapidly. Thirty years ago, families had a limited number of children’s television programming options at their disposal on broadcast TV.  Today, by contrast, there exists a broad and growing diversity of children’s television options from which families can choose. The list below highlights just some of the more popular family- or child-oriented networks available on cable, telco, and satellite television today. And this list continues to grow rapidly.

• ABC Family Channel (http://abcfamily.go.com)
• Animal Planet (http://animal.discovery.com)
• Anime Network (www.theanimenetwork.com)
• Black Family Channel (www.blackfamilychannel.com)
• Boomerang (www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/boomerang)
• Cartoon Network (www.cartoonnetwork.com)
• Discovery Channel (www.discovery.com)
• Discovery Kids (http://kids.discovery.com)
• Disney Channel (www.disney.go.com/disneychannel)
• Encore WAM!
• Familyland Television Network (www.familyland.org/content/Content.aspx?CategoryID=51)
• FUNimation (www.funimation.com)
• Hallmark Channel (www.hallmarkchannel.com)
• Hallmark Movie Channel (www.hallmarkmoviechannel.com)
• HBO Family (www.hbofamily.com)
• History Channel (www.history.com)
• KTV – Kids & Teens Television (www.ktvzone.com)
• Learning Channel (http://tlc.discovery.com)
• National Geographic Channel (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel)
• Nickelodeon (www.nick.com)
• Nick 2
• Nick Toons (http://nicktoonsnetwork.nick.com/home.html)
• Noggin (www.noggin.com)
• N Channel (www.the-n.com)
• PBS (www.pbs.org)
• PBS Kids (http://pbskids.org/go)
• Science Channel (http://science.discovery.com)
• Showtime Family Zone
• Sprout (www.sproutonline.com)
• Starz! Kids and Family (http://www.starz.com/appmanager/seg/s?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=starz_kids_family)
• Toon Disney (http://psc.disney.go.com/abcnetworks/toondisney)
• Varsity World (www.varsityworld.com)

Importantly, this list does not include the growing universe of religious / spiritual television networks. Nor does it include the many family or educational programs that traditional TV broadcasters offer. Finally, the list does not include the massive market for interactive computer software or websites for children.  All of this begs the obvious question: What more is it that policymakers want?

More offerings are always welcome, of course.  But, on a personal note, as the parents of two young kids (ages 5 and 7), my wife and I regularly struggle to sort through all the wonderful video programming options at our disposal.  We often find ourselves swimming through an ocean of choices available from our local broadcasters and multichannel video provider. Moreover, our kids are spending an increasing amount of time watching snippets of video via kid-oriented online search portals like KidZui and Glubble. Such online walled gardens offer a safe place for parents to find terrific online content for their kids.

I have to admit, all the choices my kids have today have left me a bit jealous!  I grew up in small central Illinois town with a couple of crummy (Iowa-based!) broadcast stations that were barely visible on our TV (and usually only when my Dad made me hold the antenna and stick my arms up in the air to get reception!) There was also one local cinema in town that usually showed old movies from the ‘50s and ‘60s that few kids cared to see.  And that was generally the extent of video choices for kids in our town.  Sure, the 1970s brought us Sesame Street as well as Mister Rogers (if that was your cup of tea).  Today, however, we still have those shows and much, much more.  Our kids now enjoy an unprecedented cornucopia of media alternatives and, contrary to what some policymakers would have us believe, many of them are extremely high-quality in nature.  My parents would have likely given anything to just have even one network as incredibly enriching as Noggin at their disposal in the ‘60s and ‘70s.  Instead, on the occasions that the TV had to become a babysitter and nothing worthwhile was on the tube, I usually ended up watching trashy soap operas.  (Don’t even get me started on “Days of Our Lives.” I could write a short history of the show’s 1975-1982 seasons!)

Speaking of trashy shows, there was a lot of talk at yesterday’s hearing about the “need to protect our children from harmful content,” as Sen. Rockefeller began the hearing by arguing.  But as I have shown in my parental controls report, not only are there more and better quality options to steer your kids toward today, but it is easier than ever before to steer them right to those preferred options and lock down everything else in sight.  As I concluded in that report:

there has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children. […] parents now have [many tools and techniques] at their disposal to better control media content and raise their children as they see fit. That is not to say that media and communications technologies don’t continue to play a major role in our society and culture. But… parents have been empowered with tools, controls, strategies, and information, that can help them devise and then enforce a media plan for their families that is in line with their own values.

So, again, it must be asked: What is the problem here?

Finally, it should be noted that any effort by Congress or the FCC to tinker with video programming marketplace will eventually run up against serious First Amendment concerns and eventual court challenges.  In a previous session of Congress, before he became Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Rockefeller aggressively pushed for expanded content controls, not just for broadcast television, but for cable and satellite platforms as well.  In a 2005 PFF report on Sen. Rockefeller’s “Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005,” First Amendment attorney Robert Corn-Revere of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine argued that efforts to expand the horizons of FCC regulation to cover more content and platforms “would be almost certain to fail a constitutional challenge.”  Likewise, in a 2007 PFF white paper, constitutional law expert Laurence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School, noted that the old “it’s-for-the-children” rationale for such content regulation is exactly backwards:

the malleability of children—how easy it is to mold their minds and to influence them—counts against and not in favor of centralized governmental controls. One of the arguments that you will often find is, yes, it’s all very well to believe in free speech between consenting adults but we’re talking about kids here and their minds are like plastic and they are being molded and shaped and, therefore, we have greater power to protect them. Therefore, you should keep your hands off them because they are so easy to shape. No, no, no. The argument is not that kids are malleable and therefore, Big Brother should be empowered. The argument is that kids are malleable and, therefore, families should be empowered. Parental authority should be at the center of decision making.

Indeed. And, as already noted, parents have more tools and strategies to exercise that authority than ever before, as well as more programming options to choose from. Policymakers should be celebrating these modern media marketplace developments, not bemoaning them.  We are blessed to be living in the Golden Age of children’s video programming.

I’ve just had a new article published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in which I make the case against “techno-panics,” which refers to public and political crusades against the use of new media or technologies by the young. The article is entitled “Parents, Kids & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Against ‘Techno-Panics‘” and it appears in the July 2009 Inside ALEC newsletter.  This is something I have spent a lot of time writing about here in recent years (See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and I finally got around to putting it altogether in a concise essay here.  I have pasted the full text below. [And I just want to send a shout-out to my friend Anne Collier of Net Family News.org, whose work on this topic has been very influential on my thinking.]

“Parents, Kids & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Against ‘Techno-Panics‘” by Adam Thierer

A cursory review of the history of media and communications technologies reveals a reoccurring cycle of “techno-panics” — public and political crusades against the use of new media or technologies by the young.  From the waltz to rock-and-roll to rap music, from movies to comic books to video games, from radio and television to the Internet and social networking websites, every new media format or technology has spawned a fresh debate about the potential negative effects they might have on kids.

Inevitably, fueled by media sensationalism and various activist groups, these social and cultural debates quickly become political debates. Indeed, each of the media technologies or outlets mentioned above was either regulated or threatened with regulation at some point in its history. And the cycle continues today. During recent sessions of Congress, countless hearings were held and bills introduced on a wide variety of media and content-related issues. These proposals dealt with broadcast television and radio programming, cable and satellite television content, video games, the Internet, social networking sites, and much more.  State policymakers, especially state Attorneys General (AGs), have also joined in such crusades on occasion.  The recent push by AGs for mandatory age verification for all social networking sites is merely the latest example.

What is perhaps most ironic about these techno-panics is how quickly yesterday’s boogeyman becomes tomorrow’s accepted medium, even as the new villains replace old ones.  For example, the children of the 1950s and 60s were told that Elvis’s hip shakes and the rock-and-roll revolution would make them all the tools of the devil. They grew up fine and became parents themselves, but then promptly began demonizing rap music and video games in the ‘80s and ‘90s.  And now those aging Pac Man-era parents are worried sick about their kids being abducted by predators lurking on MySpace and Facebook. We shouldn’t be surprised if, a decade or two from now, today’s Internet generation will be decrying the dangers of virtual reality.

These techno-panics are almost always disproportionate to the real risk posed by new media and technology, which typically do not have the corrupting influence on youth that older generations fear.  Parents and public policymakers alike need to remember they were once kids, too, and managed to live through many of the same fears and concerns about media and popular culture. As the late University of North Carolina journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard once noted: “[P]arents and grandparents who lead the efforts to cleanse today’s society seem to forget that they survived alleged attacks on their morals by different media when they were children. Each generation’s adults either lose faith in the ability of their young people to do the same or they become convinced that the dangers facing the new generation are much more substantial than the ones they faced as children.” And Thomas Hine, author of The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, argues that: “We seem to have moved, without skipping a beat, from blaming our parents for the ills of society to blaming our children. We want them to embody virtues we only rarely practice. We want them to eschew habits we’ve never managed to break.”

The better response by both parents and policymakers is a measured and balanced approach to children’s exposure to media content and online interactions.  All-or-nothing extremes are never going to work.  In particular, techno-panics are hopelessly counter-productive. “Fear, in many cases, is leading to overreaction, which in turn could give rise to greater problems as young people take detours around the roadblocks we think we are erecting,” argue John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, authors of Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. What parents, educators, and policymakers need to understand, they argue, “is that the traditional values and common sense that have served them well in the past will be relevant in this new world, too.”

Most simply, we need to be willing to talk to our kids about the new technologies and cultural developments that shape their generation. When we as parents (or policymakers) do not fully comprehend or appreciate the new-fangled gadget in our kids’ pocket—or whatever they are playing, watching, or listening to on it—instead of engaging in demagoguery and driving a wedge between us and them, we should instead invite them to have a conversation with us about it.  Ask three simple questions to get that conversation started: “What is this new thing all about?”  “Tell me how you use it.”  “Why is it important to you?”  Once you’ve got them talking to you, good ‘ol fashion common sense and timeless parenting principles should kick in. “Do you understand why too much of this might be bad for you?” “Will you please come talk to me if you don’t understand something you’ve seen or heard?” And so on.

In sum, it’s about parental responsibility and rational, measured responses. The “techno-panic” mentality, by contrast, creates distrust and distance between our kids and us. As Anne Collier of Net Family News notes, techno-panics “cause fear, which interferes with parent-child communication, which in turn puts kids at greater risk.”

Parents and policymakers need to engage kids in an ongoing conversation about the technologies du jour—even when we don’t fully understand or appreciate them.

————— [printable Scribd version follows] —————

“Against Techno-Panics” by Adam Thierer, PFF (July 2009 – Inside ALEC) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17392730&access_key=key-2gdkqylyeu5h376buyyi&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

Speaking of socializing media, acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps is someone who has devoted much of his life to regulating the media marketplace into the ground. If he had his way, federal bureaucrats would be controlling virtually every aspect of the media universe. Nothing would get done with Big Nanny’s permission.

That’s what makes his recent comments about the impact of media regulation so delicious.. and hypocritical.  According to an article  Bloomberg ran on Thursday, Copps is now saying that, with newspapers struggling to remain afloat, the FCC should now reconsider regulations that prohibit combined ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers.  The agency should “visit this whole problem” before long, Copps apparently told Bloomberg.

“Visit this problem before long”??  Please!  Congress and the FCC have had opportunities to “visit” and revisit this problem for many years now, but it has been Michael Copps and his merry band of media reformistas who have stopped every reform effort dead in its tracks.  (See my essays “Congress Fiddles, Newspapers Burn” and “Media Deregulation is Dead” for more evidence of how these radicals hijacked media policy in this country.)  As I documented in my 2005 Media Myths book, these charlatans have used hyperbolic rhetoric, shameless fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated claims in opposition to each and every sensible effort to reform our nation’s outdated media ownership policies.  Those laws and regulations have created artificial market structures and hindered the ability of media operators to find new business models that might throw them a lifeline in difficult times.

Consider the fact that it was just 14 months ago that then-Commissioner Copps issued this gem of a hysteria-ridden statement in response to the agency’s last effort to ever-so-slightly loosen the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule:

Today’s decision would make George Orwell proud. We claim to be giving the news industry a shot in the arm—but the real effect is to reduce total newsgathering. We shed crocodile tears for the financial plight of newspapers—yet the truth is that newspaper profits are about double the S&P 500 average.

I remember when I read that back in Dec ’07 and thinking to myself that Michael Copps is either willfully blind to the facts or intentionally twisting them to suit his own ends.  Regardless, the writing was on the wall years ago with the rise of unprecedented information abundance and media competition and there was no good reason to force traditional media operators to face these new challenges with one arm tied behind their backs.  But that’s exactly what Copps and his radical cronies over at Free Press and other groups did.

But now Copps is suddenly having second thoughts?  Now that he has dug their graves and driven stakes through their hearts, he suddenly wants to cast himself as an Information Age Jesus and resurrect Lazarus?  Oh, the hypocrisy of it all!  As my boss Ken Ferree recently pointed out:

They’ve all now suddenly discovered that the business model for daily newspapers is under strain and may not be sustainable? Was it the New York Times slouching toward bankruptcy that got their attention, or the failure of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? […] The sad truth is, the newspaper business has been heading toward a cliff for the last ten years; only willful ignorance can explain the failure of these people who have so recently come to be concerned about the fate of journalism to acknowledge the threat. Time will tell whether their new-found concern has come too late, or whether they have poisoned the political well too thoroughly for any effective policy change.

Moreover, as Ken also points out, it’s not just Copps who has apparently seen the light and had a sudden conversion.

This follows a letter from Speaker Pelosi to Attorney General Holder suggesting restrained antitrust review of transactions involving newspaper assets, and a proposal from Senator Cardin (D-MD) for a quasi-government bailout of newspaper firms.

Ken has more commentary on the Pelosi letter here.   Like Ken, when reading these comments from Pelosi and Copps, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  I suppose I should be happy that they have finally seen the error in their ways.  It’s just a shame it took such devistation for them to open their eyes to the truth.  Regulatory reform might not have been able to save these old media operators, but they should have at least been giving the freedom to structure their affairs and restructure their business models in an attempt to avoid extinction.  Copps and Pelosi now have to live with the grim reality that it’s tough to throw someone a lifeline after you’ve already sank the ship.

I was over at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the other day chatting with someone about various regulatory issues and Rush Limbaugh’s WSJ editorial came up.  The person I was speaking with made a comment about how conservatives have really been energized and unified in opposition to the re-imposition to the Doctrine.  I reminded them, however, that it wasn’t always the case that conservatives stood together in the fight over the Fairness Doctrine.  In fact, when I first came to town almost 20 years ago, there were still plenty of conservatives who actually favored it.  I was reminded of that fact when reading a new piece in Engage about “Broadcast ‘Fairness’ in the Twenty-First Century” by my friend Robert Corn-Revere.  Bob is one America’s great First Amendment defenders and his new essay offers an excellent history of efforts to micro-manage speech on the broadcast airwaves over the years.  In it, he reminds us that:

Given the recent vocal opposition to the Fairness Doctrine in the interest of preserving conservative talk radio, it is easy to forget that many prominent conservatives championed the doctrine before its demise. Phyllis Schlafly was a vocal proponent of the Fairness Doctrine because of what she described as “the outrageous and blatant anti-Reagan bias of the TV network newscasts,” and she testified at the FCC in the 1980s in support of the policy “to serve as a small restraint on the monopoly power wielded by Big TV Media.” Senator Jesse Helms was another long-time advocate of the Fairness Doctrine, and conservative groups Accuracy in Media and the American Legal Foundation actively pursued fairness complaints at the FCC against network newscasts.

Likewise, in our book, A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Brian Anderson and I note that some other prominent right-leaning politicians, such as Sen. Trent Lott, favored the Fairness Doctrine.  Moreover, even though most of those conservative individuals and groups have now turned against the Fairness Doctrine, some Republicans still defend (or even seek to expand) the same underlying regulatory concepts that served as the foundation of the Fairness Doctrine.  As Corn-Revere notes:

More recently, a Republican-controlled FCC under Kevin Martin has advocated far more extensive controls over broadcast and cable programming, including news and public affairs. These proposed regulations include requirements governing local programming, restrictions on the use of video news releases, and other new rules that would extend content controls beyond broadcasting. These initiatives have been embraced by liberal media activists, who have said they will seek to ensure that the FCC under the Democrats will adopt and enforce the proposals of the Martin Commission.  The common denominator of the liberal and conservative factions is the overriding belief that traditional First Amendment protections should not be applied to broadcasting or other electronic media.

Unfortunately, Bob’s got it exactly right: You really can’t trust anyone on the Left or Right to make a principled or consistent argument in favor of First Amendment freedoms across the board, including for broadcasting. I have made that point in greater detail in my recent essay on “FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment” as well as this old law review article, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age.”

Simply stated, proposals to regulate speech — especially speech delivered over broadcast TV and radio platforms — can emanate from either side of the political aisle.  Of course, each side has their own set of rationales for imposing controls on speech and violating the First Amendment. It often comes down to content restraint (the conservative justification) versus content promotion (the liberal justification).  In his excellent book, The Creation of Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications, media historian Paul Starr labels these different groups the “advocates of repression” (those in favor of content restraint), versus the “advocates of uplift” (those in favor of promoting specific types of content). Typically, conservatives and Republicans have dominated the “advocates of repression” camp, while most liberals and Democrats fall in the “advocates of uplift” category.  Ford Rowan, author of the book Broadcast Fairness, put it this way: “Many liberals want regulation to make broadcasting do wonderful things; many conservatives want regulation to restrain broadcasting from doing terrible things.”

Increasingly, however, the ideological divide is disappearing between these two camps. Congressional lawmakers such as former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) on the political Left often favor the same content controls and mandates that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) on the political Right. That’s true not just of broadcast regulation, but for proposals to censor video games, the Internet, and social networking sites.  And, even when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, until just recently there was “a vast bipartisan conspiracy” to keep it on the books, as Corn-Revere argues.  I’m glad those conservatives who once favored the Fairness Doctrine came around to seeing the error in the ways.  Nonetheless, this episode illustrates how, once again, those of us who care about free speech and expression must remain vigilant in defending the First Amendment from attacks by both conservatives and liberals.

[This represents a bit of a departure from the traditional format of my ongoing “Media Deconsolidiation Series,” but you will see how it ties in…]

So, some guy from the (Un)Free Press — the activist group that wants to regulate every facet of the media and broadband universe — has created a scary looking chart about “Information Control” [seen below]. It’s based loosely on the Periodic Table of Elements, you know, to give it the aura of science and fact. In reality, it’s just another silly scare tactic that tells us very little about the true nature of our modern media marketplace.

The chart is accompanied by the typical Free Press gloom-and-doom rhetoric about the unfolding media apocalypse. “Nearly everything you see, hear and read that isn’t from a friend — whether on TV, the radio, or even on the Web — comes from a for-profit gatekeeper.”  And then comes the obligatory A.J. Liebling quote about how “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one,” followed quickly by the typical punch line about how just a handful of companies (in this case 55 of ’em) are puppeteering all our thoughts in America today:

Combined, these 55 powerful media and telecommunications companies raked in total revenues in excess of $700 billion in 2007. Together they own over 540 TV stations, 2000 radio stations, 430 newspapers, 230 magazines, and 80 major cable channels in the United States. They provide paid TV service to approximately 52 million subscribers and broadband Internet service to over 57 million subscribers. They’re the bottlenecks through which our news, our entertainment, and our political discourse must travel. What they want to promote becomes prominent; what they suppress stays out of the mainstream. As such, these companies are the elements of information control.

Oh my God! We are all just brainwashed sheep!

Except we’re not. It amazes me how these “information control” and “media monopoly” myths keep getting widespread circulation. But the first thing to note is how the media reformistas can’t get even their story straight when it comes to how many “monopolists” are supposedly out there today. As I noted in my 2005 book, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership, the critics seem to just pull their numbers out of a hat. Some say as few as 3 companies control everything. Others says 5 or 6. Still others say it might be a few dozen. And now this guy says its 55. Hey, that’s progress that even the Free Press should love!

Regardless of the number, does this really represent the totality of our modern media universe? Do those 55 companies really “own most of the 21st-century presses in America” as the “Info Control” website states? Answer: NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.  Here are the facts. [I happened to have compiled them for a PFF special report entitled Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace to debunk myths just like this.]

In the table above, I have taken the number of media outlets owned by the 55 companies and then divided it by the total number of media outlets. This gives us the actual percentage of media outlets owned by the 55 media providers listed in the “Information Control” chart.  Needless to say, it’s hard to see how anyone can claim “bottleneck” control or “media monopoly” when an average of just 18% of all those outlets are owned by the 55 companies! And what that number doesn’t tell you is that — as my “Media Deconsolidation” series has been illustrating over the past two years — America’s media marketplace has been growing less concentrated with each passing month. Media companies are selling off and shedding assets and divisions faster than ever. There’s a 24-hour death watch going on over at Twitter these days on the “Media is Dying” thread if you care to follow the carnage in less than 140 characters at a time.

Oh, here’s another problem with the “Information Control” chart: Where exactly does the Internet fit into the picture? Answer: It doesn’t. They’ve conveniently left out the Net, online media, blogging, social networking, podcasting, and other bottom-up, user-generated content and forms of communication.

But let’s ignore the Internet and all those new Digital Age options for a moment. Let’s say this guy had it right and that only 55 companies really did control “Nearly everything you see, hear and read.”  The fact is, that really wouldn’t be the end of the world. 55 competitors would be considered a luxury in just about any other major economic sector.  Care to draw up a “Periodic Chart” for autos, airlines, supermarkets, or semiconductors? If one did, there would be far fewer squares on it. The fact is, even if we accepted the artificial limitations of this chart, we’d still have a lot of choices at our disposal.

But we need not accept those limitations. We live in a different world; a better world. With far more choices and diversity than this silly chart indicates. Indeed, by every conceivable measure we have more media options and diversity than we did 30 years ago. Magnitudes more. I bet the guy who put this chart together isn’t even old enough to remember when three old white guys in bad suits delivered us a half-hour of news each night at 6:30, and if we weren’t lucky enough to be sitting in front of our TVs at that exact moment, then we were screwed. Compare that pre-1980 reality to today and the unprecedented information cornucopia at our disposal. In my lifetime (I’m 40) we have seen the death of mass media and the end of “appointment-based” media consumption.  Media providers no longer call the shots; we the viewing and listening public do.

But shhhhh… we’re not suppose to talk about these meddlesome things called facts. You see, the entire media policy drama in this country is based on a glorious set of mega-myths. There’s a handful of nefarious schemers aiming to program our little minds with corporate propaganda, or so the story goes. They must be stopped. At all costs. Luckily, the enlightened few at the Free Press and other media reformista outfits have managed to avoid the corporate brainwashing — My God, how did they ever do it! — and so they are ready to lead us to the media promised land. But to get there, we must first burn the village to save it. We must destroy free media (as in free-market, for-profit media) to rebuild free media (as in media controlled by government masters). Only then will we enter Information Nirvana and liberate our minds from our evil corporate overlords!

Or so the story goes.

(P.S. Brian Anderson and I recently penned a book to counter these fantasies and the efforts by the media reformistas to remake the media marketplace in their preferred image. See: A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Encounter Books, 2008).

In her latest column, Media Post media market guru Diane Mermigas wonders how long it will be before we see a traditional over-the-air (OTA) broadcast TV network (like ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox) dump their old broadcast business altogether and just move all their properties to cable and satellite TV. And, in response to Mermigas, Cory Bergman of Lost Remote argues, as I did last week, “the real future of TV is not linear cable, but non-linear video delivered seamlessly via IP to multiple devices, including your TV set. But mass adoption of this approach is still several years away.”

Bergman is right. It would be foolish to think any traditional network is going to rely exclusively on IP-based distribution any time soon; they see it as more of a compliment (or another product window). But Mermigas may be on to something in predicting that broadcast networks may soon be looking to get out of the OTA television business altogether and essentially become “a glorified general entertainment cable network.”

The strain on their dysfunctional paradigm is emanating from a devastating recession and the ongoing digital revolution. Both are permanently altering the rules of play for the networks. A case can be made for at least one of the Big 4 broadcast networks emerging as a glorified general entertainment cable network within the next several years. The economic advantages: more steady ad revenues and consistent subscriber fees as content is distributed cross-platform. It would be a bold move that a free-spirited company such as News Corp. might already be contemplating for its Fox Broadcast TV Network, or NBC Universal for its peacock network. Industry analysts increasingly wonder how an independent CBS can prattle on under the crumbling old rules. In a world of exploding access and choices, the prime-time ratings (even with Live plus 3 configurations) spell diminishing returns. For Disney, ABC’s general entertainment status is on par with ESPN in sports; the new multi-platform model is in place except for formally moving the ABC TV Network to the cable side of the ledger.

Such a suggestion would have been considered outlandish even just a few years ago, but now it seems like it’s only a matter of time before one of the majors makes the jump to being a cable-exclusive “super-station.” It’s another sign of the radical metamorphosis underway in our modern media marketplace. Mermigas notes that “The most compelling argument for the Big 4 surviving as cable networks is economic”:

Digital distribution is a long way from yielding the financial returns needed to offset the dilution of old-line mainstream revenues. The vulnerability of the broadcast networks’ $9 billion in upfront ad revenues will be starkly evident next spring amid the protracted recession. Major ad categories–such as autos, financials, real estate and retail–will be markedly altered in their spending as well as structure. The Big 3 U.S. automakers account for 6% of the Big 3 broadcast networks’ ad revenues (9% for Fox) and 2.5% of cable networks’ overall advertising (7% for ESPN). On the cost side, less than 30% of core expenses can be eliminated from program production budgets and legacy operations, which means that the entire broadcast network dynamic must be reengineered. Despite all the complications, the easiest, most efficient business model conversion would be to reset broadcast networks as general entertainment cable networks. […]

While the most competitive cable networks have closed the ratings gaps with broadcast networks, they still fail to command similar ad unit prices. Prices have failed to reflect changed value propositions; that dilemma will be resolved in a digital marketplace. Bottom line: the alignment of broadcast and cable networks is already in place. Cable’s niche appeal, parallel to the Internet’s special interest “long tail,” will continue to nudge advertisers, consumers and content providers toward a more fully monetized online business model.

It is my belief that this migration would have already been occurring had broadcast spectrum holders been granted flexible use and resale rights for their spectrum long ago. Unfortunately, the same old command-and-control system of spectrum regulation that the FCC put in place seven decades is still haunts us today. That system literally makes it a crime for television broadcasters to sell their existing spectrum for anything other than broadcast television. They can’t repurpose their spectrum for an alternative purpose. Nor can they sell it to someone else who might put it to different use (say, high-speed wireless broadband). Just think, if they would have had unambiguous property rights in their allocation, they might have had the incentive to already have thrown the switch on the plan to migrate their content from OTA to cable and satellite entirely.

Of course, that now may happen anyway for the reasons Mermigas suggests. And the migration of more and more content to the Internet will only speed that process along. It’s just a shame that regulation prevents markets from reallocating spectrum efficiently.

Finally, if the networks begin to make this jump, it raises another interesting question: What about the local broadcast television operators who are not owned by a major network? What’s going to happen to them?

Interesting days ahead.

In a City Journal article earlier this year, I wondered “how long some local papers have left when they are barred from restructuring their businesses or partnering with other local media operators to stem the bleeding and reinvent their business models.”  I was responding to the Senate’s smack-down of a half-hearted reform effort that FCC chairman Kevin Martin pushed through in November 2007, which proposed relaxing the FCC’s newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. That rule, unrevised since going into effect in 1975, prohibits a newspaper operator from also owning a radio or television station in the same media market. However, waivers were granted to grandfather in some combined newspaper and broadcast operations that had existed long before the ban took effect. Martin’s proposal was to simply tweak the rule to permit similar combinations in just the nation’s 20 largest media markets.

Martin’s limited liberalization proposal, however, led to howls of disapproval from FCC democrats like Michael Copps and many folks on both side of the aisle in Congress. Supposedly, this was nothing more than a “giveaway” to the newspaper industry, which critics said was doing just fine.  It really makes you wonder if any of those critics even both reading the news about newspapers today.

As I have documented here on many occasions, as well as in my big Media Metrics report, the newspaper industry is in huge trouble with every financial variable of importance rapidly heading south. Alan Mutter does a good job here of summarizing “the secular forces dragging down newspapers: Declining readership, shrinking advertising, high fixed costs and growing online competition that makes it increasingly difficult to charge the premium ad rates that were possible prior to the Internet.”  As a result of these forces, everyday brings another headline like this one today in the New York Times: “The Star-Ledger of Newark Plans 40% Cut,” or this one in the Wall Street Journal: “Some Newspapers Shed Unprofitable Readers.”  The numbers are just miserable, and they just get worse and worse.

Now, you might say, “So what? That’s creative destruction at work.” Indeed it is, and it’s an entirely natural and healthy marketplace phenomenon. The problem, however, is that there’s still a lot of regulating going on.  Specifically, papers remain bound by red tape in the form of artificial market ownership restrictions that disallow the creation of new business models that might save them what appears to be their possible extinction.

I am not at all confident that consolidation or creative ownership arrangements will actually throw them much of a lifeline — it’s probably too little, too late, now that so many readers and advertisers have flocked to the Net and other media platforms.   Nonetheless, they should not be bound by archaic media ownership rules put on the books a quarter century ago in an era of less competition and consumer choice.  Let papers restructure and compete.  It may be their only chance at survival.

Update: Just a few minutes after posting this I came across this NYT article documenting the latest quarterly newspaper circulation numbers and how the numbers just keep getting worse. Sales in the spring and summer fell almost 5 percent from the previous year according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

In late June, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opened a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding “Sponsorship Identification Rules and Embedded Advertising” (MB Docket No. 08-90). Basically, it’s an inquiry into the product placement and embedded advertising practices on television. Some at the FCC want such practices regulated.

PFF filed comments in the matter today. Ken Ferree and I argue that that FCC regulation of such advertising practices would be unnecessary and unwise. “If the Notice demonstrates anything,” we argue, “it is that a majority of the current Commissioners live in a world wholly alien and unfamiliar to most Americans; indeed, a world long forgotten if it ever existed.” We continue:

The Notice alludes menacingly to new, “subtle and sophisticated means” of commercial messaging, to “sneaky commercials” (quoting a senescent order topped with nearly fifty-years of dust) and to “vindicat[ing]” the policy goals of the Communications Act – as if the FCC must exact vengeance on those who would try – horror of horrors – to sell goods and services to the American public. The melodramatic tone of the Notice is intended, of course, to set the stage for the Commission’s latest effort to micromanage the free marketplace of ideas, i.e., the media. Only by portraying “embedded” advertising as something new and nefarious can the Commission hope to justify a new portfolio of intrusive and burdensome speech regulations in the name of preserving the “public’s right to know who is paying to air commercials or other program matter on broadcast television and radio and cable.”

And, as we make clear in the filing, we don’t buy the argument that the public are nothing more than mindless sheep:

Motivating the effort to expand the FCC’s regulation of private speech is a view that the Commission must protect the public from “stealth advertising” and “secret” advertisements that “prey upon unsuspecting minds.” One would think that before such loaded and sinister characterizations were used, the Commission might demand some evidence that the public is both 1) unaware of the commercial nature of product placements or other embedded advertisements and 2) that some positive harm flows directly from any such lack of awareness. In fact, however, there can be little doubt but that viewers and listeners understand that when “American Idol” judges drink from Coca Cola cups, promotional consideration was exchanged; when a radio host talks about the great dinner he ate at Ruth’s Chris Steak House, the restaurant is a sponsor of the show; when contestants on “The Biggest Loser” are taught how to make desserts with “Jell-O” gelatin, the association is not serendipitous. When brand names are used in program material, the public generally understands that some form of commercial sponsorship is involved. Indeed, it is hard even to imagine that the American public could be as ignorant or naïve as a majority of the Commission appears to believe they are.

Indeed, we argued, “With respect to embedded commercial material, the Internet has spawned a variety of instantaneous feedback mechanisms allowing average Americans to serve as media watchdogs, policing product placement and taking steps to point out when placements have become excessive, or even silly.” For example, product placement and brand promotion in movies and television is now closely monitored by a wide variety of websites, such as BrandSpotters.com and BrandChannel.com. Also see the “Product Placement” entry at Wikipedia. Thus:

the “harm” posited by the Notice is an imaginative fiction – a fiction driven entirely by the paternalistic view that an enlightened few, who happen to be ensconced on the 8th floor of a federal building in Southwest D.C., see the truth while the public at large is made up of mindless sheep being duped at every turn by advertisers. In fact, of course, those who hold this view are themselves victims of the so-called “third-person effect”: “People tend to think that other people are fooled by what they themselves understand perfectly.” [quoting W. Phillips Davison, 1983] A rich literature exists on the myriad ways in which the third-person effect has predicated calls for speech controls and media regulation.

But what’s the harm, a skeptic might ask, in a little more FCC regulation here? It’s three-fold: (1) It’s another blow to First Amendment rights. (2) It unfairly singles out the already over-regulated broadcast media sector relative to its many unregulated competitors. (3) It could have a detrimental economic impact on the health of that struggling sector, which relies entirely on advertising to maintain its “free” content offerings. As we go on to conclude in our filing:

Ironically, the “remedies” suggested in the Notice not only are unnecessary, overbroad, and over-burdensome given the absolute paucity of evidence that embedded advertisements pose any kind of risk or harm to the public, they would in fact have a deleterious effect on the health of free media in America. As a result of the rapid introduction and growth of new media outlets, traditional media operators, and particularly free broadcast media, are struggling to remain relevant and profitable. An era of media abundance for consumers is an era of hyper-competition for suppliers; traditional media operators and their business models are under enormous strain. Yet the burdensome disclosure regulations posited in the Notice are targeted directly at traditional media platforms, while new media outlets over which the FCC has little or no authority would remain free to sell advertising in whatever form they choose. Not only would such an approach be inequitable, it would sap the very lifeblood of free, traditional media – commercial advertising. At a time when VCRs, DVD players, digital video recorders, video on demand, video on the Internet are making stand-alone commercial spots obsolete, embedded advertisements and product sponsorship may become the only methods of continued support for free, over-the-air broadcasting. Further, enhanced government regulation of speech on traditional platforms will only serve to accelerate the migration of program content to new, unregulated platforms. In this case, therefore, the proposed remedies are worse than the purported disease. In the name of protecting consumers from “hidden” advertisements, the FCC is contemplating rules that likely would destroy the financial health and well-being of the free broadcast medium and unfairly handicap cable services vis-à-vis new media platforms. Indeed, because of the steady progress of media technology, the very rationale for FCC content regulation of broadcast and cable programming has become superannuated. Advertisers and consumers have moved on and are adapting to the 21st Century media marketplace — the Commission should, too.

Our filing can be downloaded from the PFF webpage here and I have embedded the filing below in a Scribd reader if you care to take a quick look:

I was on NPR’s “On the Media” program this weekend discussing the recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the FCC’s fines in the “Janet Jackson case.” As I noted in this lengthy analysis of the decision, the court said that the agency’s recent efforts to expand the parameters of “indecency” enforcement for broadcast programming went too far, too fast. “[T]he FCC’s new policy sanctioning ‘fleeting expletives’ is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy,” the Court held.

“On the Media” host Bob Garfield interviewed me for 5 minutes about the decision and its ramifications. The show can be heard here or you can just read the transcript there. Or you can just listen to it by clicking the button below…

Faithful readers will recall that, several months ago, I penned a 7-part “Media Metrics” series that took a hard look at the health of the media marketplace. Today, the Progress & Freedom Foundation is releasing a greatly expanded version of these essays that I have put together with my PFF colleague Grant Eskelsen. In this 100-page special report, “Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace,” we begin by noting that heated debates about the state of the media marketplace continue to rage in Washington, and opinions seem to range from grim to outright apocalyptic. As we note on pg. 1:

Many people—including a large number of legislators and regulators—argue that America’s media marketplace is in a miserable state. Some claim that citizens lack choice in media outlets and that options are just as scarce as ever. Others believe that media “localism” is dead or that many groups or niches go underserved because of a lack of true “diversity” in media. Others argue that the market is hopelessly over-concentrated in the hands of a few evil media barons who are hell-bent on force-feeding us corporate propaganda. And still others say that the quality of news and entertainment in our society has deteriorated because of a combination of all of the above. It all sounds quite troubling, but is any of it true?

After taking an objective look at the true state of America’s media marketplace, we conclude that such pessimism is unwarranted. Indeed, a careful review of the facts reveals that—contrary to what those media critics suggest—we have more media choice, more media competition, and more media diversity than ever before. Indeed, to the extent there was ever a “golden age” of media in America, we are living in it today. The media sky has never been brighter and it is getting brighter with each passing year. We come to this conclusion by looking beyond the rhetoric that has for too long governed debates about media in American and providing a comprehensive look at a variety of media sectors such as audio, video, print and online media. Our survey contains over 70 charts and exhibits illustrating facts and figures on such diverse topics as advertising revenue, company market share, audience trends, and areas of growth in the sector. We will also aim to periodically updated the report to reflect the rapidly evolving media industry.

We encourage readers to provider input about how to improve and expand the report going forward in an attempt to refine and improve the metrics. And we look forward to future debates on this subject–debates that we hope will be guided by facts instead of fanaticism and by evidence instead of emotion. The hyperbolic rhetoric, shameless fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated claims that have driven policy debates in recent years have no foundation in reality and should be rejected as the debate over media policy continues.

This and future installments of “Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace” will be available on the PFF website at www.pff.org/mediametrics. I have also embedded the entire document below as a Scribd file so that those interested in the topic can peruse the report immediately.

WASHINGTON, March 13, 2007 – The Electronic Frontier Foundation on Tuesday released a paper about the entertainment industry’s move to take copyright controls global.

The report is the result of EFF’s participation in a closed-door session of the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB), the predominant global standard for digital television. (America uses a different digital standard that supports high-definition.)

EFF’s report documents the extent to which the DVB consortium has signaled its assent to copyright control technology. EFF called these a series of “unparalleled restrictions” on consumers’ rights to enjoy lawful digital content. These include “enforcing severe home recording and copying limitation,” “imposing controls on where you watch a program” and “dictating how you get to share shows with your own family,” according to EFF.

America’s transition to digital television makes use of a different standard, created by the Advanced Television Systems Committee. The ATSC standard did not have any copyright controls. But at the insistence of motion picture studios, ATSC added a technology described as the “broadcast flag.”

A U.S.-based standards organization known as the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group, a subgroup of the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, released a specification governing the broadcast flag in 2002.

In November 2003, the Federal Communications Commission imposed a requirement that all television manufactures implement the broadcast flag by 2004. In 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the requirement on the grounds that the FCC lacked jurisdiction. The motion picture industry has since unsuccessfully pressed for legislation re-instating the requirement.

“We have made a number of policy mistakes in the U.S. by giving a lot of power over technology to entertainment companies,” said Seth Schoen, staff technologist at the EFF. “This is the next battleground, and the Europeans are being asked to repeat these mistakes within their own technology and regulatory framework.”

Schoen said that the copy-control technology, called Content Protection and Copy Management (CPCM), would place strict limits on home recording conducted on digital video recorders and other electronic devices. Although the American “broadcast flag” would have imposed restrictions on legally sharing copies of digital movies, the flag did not restrict the number of copies a user could make of a digital movie.

But because the DVB technology governs cable, satellite and broadcast transmissions in Europe and elsewhere, the new copyright controls approved by a DVB technical committee could also affect Europeans’ and others’ ability to watch pay-television programs on their computers.

“In Europe, there are people creating TiVo-like systems on their computers that receive pay cable and satellite systems,” said Schoen. Such technologies are strictly limited in the U.S. because cable companies refuse to approve technologies that do not meet the anti-piracy specifications of CableLabs, the industry’s research consortium.

The new copyright controls within CPCM would restrict the ability to see pay-TV on computers, said Schoen. Implementation of other controls could also be triggered by ratification of a Broadcasting Treaty currently under negotiation by the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva.

To attend the technical meetings in which the DVB copyright controls were discussed, EFF was required to pay a 10,000 Euro annual admission fee. It received a grant from the MacArthur Foundation to do so, said Schoen.

The Copy Protection Technical Working Group in the U.S. requires participants attending its standards sessions to pay a $125 per-meeting fee. Although CPTWG claims to be an open forum, reporters are barred from attending.

A spokesperson from the Motion Picture Association of America did not return a call seeking comment on the EFF report by the time of publication.