Yesterday, Time Warner Cable and CBS reached a deal to end the weeks-long impasse that had resulted in CBS being blacked out in over 3 million U.S. households.

I predicted the two companies would resolve their differences before the start of the NFL season in a RealClearPolicy op-ed published last week:

From Los Angeles to New York, 3 million Americans in eight U.S. cities haven’t been able to watch CBS on cable for weeks, because of a business dispute between the network and Time Warner Cable (TWC). The two companies can’t agree on how much TWC should pay to carry CBS, so the network has blacked out TWC subscribers since August 1. With the NFL season kicking off on September 5, the timing couldn’t be worse for football fans.

Regulators at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) face growing pressure to force the feuding companies to reach an agreement. But despite viewers’ frustrations with this standoff, government intervention isn’t the answer. If bureaucrats begin “overseeing” disputes between network owners and video providers, television viewers will face higher prices or lower-quality shows.

TWC and CBS are playing hardball over serious cash. CBS reportedly seeks to double its fee to $2 per subscriber each month, which TWC claims is an outrageous price increase. But CBS argues it costs more and more to develop hit new shows like Under the Dome, so it’s only fair viewers pay a bit more.

Both sides have a point. TWC is looking out for its millions of subscribers—and its bottom line—by keeping programming costs down. CBS, on the other hand, needs cash to develop creative new content, and hopes it can make some money doing so.

What’s the “fair” price for CBS? The answer lies in the marketplace, which empowers firms to “discover” prices through negotiation. Both CBS and TWC have strong incentives to end this dispute—their shareholders won’t put up with this dispute forever. CBS can’t be happy about losing a reported $400,000 each day TWC subscribers can’t tune in, while TWC is surely losing customers to competing providers—including Verizon, which is aggressively wooing New Yorkers with its CBS-equipped FiOS service.

If the FCC intervenes, it must decide how much TWC should pay CBS. Regulators may be able to read charts, but they can’t read minds. How, then, can the FCC divine how much value the two companies and their customers place on these competing priorities? Given how Washington works, the feds will probably bend to whichever side hires the best-connected lobbyists and influence peddlers.

As long as networks are free to bargain with video providers, television blackouts will happen—but not often. According to economist Jeffrey Eisenach, blackouts disrupt less than 1 in 10,000 viewing hours for consumers. Disputes over fees rarely interrupt programming because they infuriate viewers, ultimately harming networks and cable companies alike. But this hardly means blackouts should be illegal. Imagine a labor union that couldn’t strike—no rational private-sector employer would take its wage demands seriously.

Why should cable companies pay for broadcast networks in the first place, given that broadcasters transmit their networks over the air for free? Because consumers prefer the convenience and reliability of network channels distributed by cable, and in order to satisfy this preference cable companies need access to material that does not belong to them. This access requires negotiating with the networks.

The alternative isn’t forcing networks to give their content away for free, but rather for cable subscribers to pay slightly lower bills but lose broadcast channels which they could still watch via antenna, just like everyone else. If customers preferred this, cable companies would happily stop paying broadcasters. As it is, cable consumers are paying more for convenience by choice, not unlike someone who goes to a weekend movie for $12 when they could go on a Tuesday night for $7.

If the government truly wants to help television viewers, Congress should nix the unfair and anti-competitive legal perks that broadcast affiliates currently enjoy, such as the federal regulation requiring cable companies to buy broadcast content only from the local affiliates in each city. In other words, a cable company can’t let New Yorkers watch primetime shows provided by any CBS station in the nation other than the New York CBS affiliate.

CBS and Time Warner Cable will reach a deal soon enough—they can’t afford not to. Meanwhile, if you’re sticking with TWC, you can still catch your CBS favorites over the air or on Internet platforms like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu. So long as government stays out of the vibrant entertainment market, there will always be alternatives.

For more on this subject, see the recent essays by fellow Liberators Adam Thierer and Jerry Brito.

There are few things more likely to get constituents to call their representative than TV programming blackouts, and the increase in broadcasting disruptions arising from licensing disputes in recent years means Congress may be forced to once again fix television and copyright laws. As Jerry Brito explains at Reason, the current standoff between CBS and Time Warner Cable is the result of bad regulations, which contribute to more frequent broadcaster blackouts. While each type of TV distributor (cable, satellite, broadcasters, telcos) is both disadvantaged and advantaged through regulation, broadcasters are particularly favored. As the US Copyright Office has said, the rule at issue in CBS-TWC is “part of a thicket of communications law requirements aimed at protecting and supporting the broadcast industry.”

But as we approach a damaging tipping point of rising programming costs and blackouts, Congress’ potential rescuer–Aereo–appears on the horizon, possibly buying more time before a major regulatory rewrite. Aereo, for the uninitiated, is a small online company that sets up tiny antennas in certain cities to capture broadcast television station signals–like CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, the CW, and Univision–and streams those signals online to paying customers, who can watch live or record the local signals captured by their own “rented” Aereo antenna. Broadcasters hate this because the service deprives them of lucrative retransmission fees and unsuccessfully sued to get Aereo to cease operations.

Let’s back up. Broadcast television is–as my colleague Tom Hazlett says–the “killer app of 1952.” It’s an old technology featuring a few dozen channels that hasn’t fared well with the rise of subscription television offering hundreds of channels–Comcast, Dish, U-Verse, and others. Only about 10% to 15% of households rely on rabbit ears antennas to receive free broadcast TV, while the rest have a subscription.

I’m doubtful Congress will step in and make online distributors like Aereo pay for retransmission. While the laws tilt in broadcasters’ favor, Aereo gives cable and satellite companies additional leverage since–if they have a protracted fight with a broadcaster–they can direct their customers to Aereo. TWC is, in fact, doing this in its current dispute with CBS. Since customers have an online option, no one needs to miss NFL preseason football or the latest How I Met Your Mother. Aereo is not an ideal solution, but it gives a cable or satellite provider another bargaining weapon.

For several reasons, I think Congress may allow Aereo to proceed. First, with the variety of print, online, and television options consumers face today, broadcast programming is no longer a sacred cow. Congress, the FCC, and the tech and telecom industries are anxious to get more broadcasters off the air to make room for spectrum-hungry mobile technologies. That is the precise purpose of the pending incentive auctions. Broadcasters are a powerful group with compelling arguments for the status quo–they provide high-demand local news, sports, and weather, for instance–but many people are beginning to realistically imagine life without them.

Second, the primary political justification for protecting local broadcasters–local ownership and diversity–has “virtually vanished” because of industry consolidation in the 1990s and 2000s, as Harold Feld from Public Knowledge notes. It was easier in the past to defend these regulatory carve-outs for broadcasters when locally-owned operations were the beneficiaries, but today many broadcasters are owned by large media companies.

Finally, in the dynamic video marketplace, Congress may be hesitant to impose more regulations on new video technologies. Protecting a 1950s technology by enforcing 1990s laws on today’s Internet services makes little sense. Already, television laws passed in the 1990s look terribly dated and give Congress and the FCC headaches. Rewriting television and copyright laws is a huge task involving many powerful industries seeking protection from disruptive law changes. With the House and Senate controlled by different parties, this makes a grand compromise even less likely.

So Aereo and other antenna rental services represent some relief for regulators since it gives cable and satellite providers a little more leverage. The service is only in a few cities but is quickly expanding. If consumers adopt the service during future disputes, a semblance of equilibrium may return when subscription services bargain with broadcasters. For that reason, Congress may want to sit back and see how it plays out.

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

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

The Wall Street Journal reports (see Financial Times, too) that “CBS Corp. and Walt Disney Co. are considering participating in Apple Inc.’s plan to offer television subscriptions over the Internet, according to people familiar with the matter, as Apple prepares a potential new competitor to cable and satellite TV.”

If Apple signs up enough networks to launch a viable service—still a very big if—it could ultimately alter the economics of the television business. The service could undermine the big bundles of channels that cable, satellite and telecommunications companies, including Comcast Corp. and DirecTV Inc., have traditionally sold in packages to subscribers.

And Brian Stelter of The New York Times says of the plan:

Broadband Internet subscriptions to TV networks could potentially destabilize the bedrock of the television business, which relies on subscribers paying for dozens of bundled channels.

As we have noted have noted here in our ongoing “Cutting the Video Cord” series, it’s just another sign that the video marketplace is vibrantly competitive and experiencing unprecedented innovation. So, why is Washington regulating this marketplace like we still live in the disco era?

The New York Times itself seems to be of two minds on this: Brian seems to recognize that the rise of Internet television means that cable providers no longer have any sort of special “gatekeeper” or “bottleneck” control over the programming available to consumers, just as his colleague Nick Bilton at the Times‘ BITS blog recently declared that “Cable Freedom Is a Click Away.” And yet, as Berin recently noted, when the DC Circuit struck down the FCC’s outdated 30% cap on the number of homes a single cable provider could serve (based on “gatekeeper” concerns) back in September, the  Times editorial page bemoaned the decision and demanded further regulation of the cable industry—even as Internet TV is fundamentally changing the marketplace for video programming and rendering moot “gatekeeper” concerns far more effectively than any law could ever do.

“Right hand, meet Left hand. Howyadoinnicetameetcha!”

Over at Ars, Matt Lasar has a piece about the need for better FCC indecency complaint statistics. He has been monitoring the wild fluctuations in indecency complaint tallies in recent years and wonders:

whether the agency’s indecency/obscenity statistics reflect spontaneous viewer response to the level of erotic/linguistic friskiness on TV or solely on the power of coordinated campaigns launched by groups like the Parents Television Council.

Indeed, PTC is the primary culprit. As I noted in my big 2005 PFF report “Examining the FCC’s Complaint-Driven Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Process”, “The PTC’s increasingly effective use of computer-generated campaigns against specific TV programs is a leading factor in explaining the large jump in indecency complaints in recent years.” The PTC has even taken credit for it themselves, as I noted in the paper.

How did the FCC’s indecency process get so screwy, and how did the PTC come to influence it so greatly? As I noted in that paper (as well as a Supreme Court filing with my friends at CDT), in recent years the FCC has quietly and without major notice made two methodological changes to its tallying of broadcast indecency complaints, both changes urged upon the FCC by a single advocacy group — the PTC — targeting broadcast indecency:

• On July 1, 2003, the agency began tallying each computer-generated complaint sent to the FCC by any advocacy group as an individual complaint, rather than as one complaint as had been done previously. The advocacy group benefiting from that change had challenged the FCC to make the change by June 30th and boasted later that it was responsible for the FCC’s redirection, citing reassurances of FCC commissioners.
• In the first quarter of 2004 — the time when the Super Bowl incident with Janet Jackson occurred — the FCC began counting complaints multiple times if the individual sent the complaint to more than one office within the FCC. This change, which had the capability of increasing by a factor of 5 or 6 or 7 the number of complaints recorded, was noted in a footnote of that quarter’s FCC Quarterly Report. The footnote acknowledged that “[t]he reported counts may also include duplicate complaints or contacts…”

For many years, the PTC has pressured the FCC to change their methodology to give greater weight to their computer-generated e-mail complaint campaigns. It appears their efforts paid off and now the PTC and other groups are essentially able to “stuff the ballot box” in terms of inflating indecency complaints at the FCC and potentially spurring increased regulatory activism as a result. In turn, these bogus numbers are cited in the press and in political statements by lawmakers when they are seeking to expand fines or regulations.

Unfortunately, even if Congress forced the FCC to fix these problems with the indecency complaint process, so long as the agency and that process exists there will be groups like PTC trying to use it to influence public policy and impose speech controls in this country. The millions of Americans who are perfectly happy with what they see on TV or hear on radio are never going to send a letter to the FCC saying as much. It’s only the hecklers that bombard the FCC with complaints and get them heard and acted upon, even if they only represent a minority viewpoint about video and audio programming.

Of course, these hecklers could just turn off those devices or use parental control tools and stratgies to deal with what their kids see and hear. Instead, those folks want to impose their will on ALL of us. Worse yet, they now are expanding their mission to include the Internet. Thankfully, we don’t have a Federal Computer Commission fielding bogus complaints about the Net.  At least not yet.

Over at DrewClark.com, earlier today I reported today that television networks – which in recent years have had a strained relationship with local broadcasters on a variety of fronts – joined with the National Association of Broadcasters in calling for a time out on the politically simmering issue of “white spaces.” Here’s the start of the story, and you can read the full post at DrewClark.com

WASHINGTON, October 23 – The top executives of the four major broadcast networks on Thursday urged the head of the Federal Communications Commission to delay a vote on a politically simmering issue that pits broadcasters against Google and high-tech executives.

In the letter, the CEOs of CBS Corp., NBC Universal and Walt Disney, and the chief operating officer of News Corp., urge that the FCC exercise caution before taking irreparable action with regard to the vacant television channels known as “white spaces.”

Google and the other technology executives, including Microsoft, Motorola, Philips and others, want the FCC to authorize electronic devices that capable of transmitting internet signals over vacant television bands.

The network executives – CBS’s Leslie Moonves, Disney’s Robert Iger, NBC’s Jeffrey Zucker and Peter Chernin of News Corp. – want a time out.

They join their local broadcasting colleagues, as well as manufacturers and users of wireless microphones, like the National Football League and Boadway theater owners, who have been actively lobbying the issue.

[…]

Read the rest of the story at my blog, DrewClark.com – The Politics of Telecom, Media and Technology

Friend of TLF and chief political correspondent for CNET Declan McCullagh has a new column on CBSNews.com called “Other People’s Money.”

Nice name, but we’ll have to see whether his status as a fully decorated part of the mainstream media draws him from principled writing to constant applause for self-appointed experts who want to spend our taxed-away dollars for us.

His freshman effort looks pretty good. “Will U.S. Taxpayers Need a Bailout?” points out the perils of politically directed investments in the banking sector.

Lately I’ve been writing about potentially historic upcoming First Amendment case of FCC v. Fox Television Stations. The Supreme Court will hear the case on Tuesday, November 4th. All the briefs in the case are in and can be found on the ABA website here. But I’ve pasted the links for all of them below as well. In coming days and weeks I might be highlighting some of the comments from the briefs. [The docket number for the case is 07-582]. The amicus brief I filed with my friends at CDT can be found here, and I wrote about it last week here on the TLF.

The FCC v. Fox case is the indecency case involving the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives.” I wrote about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision here. The full decision is here. The FCC v. Fox case could become the most important First Amendment-related Supreme Court case since FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which just turned 30 years old last month. Anyway, here are all the briefs in the case, starting with the merit briefs by the lead parties:

Merit briefs

• Brief for Petitioner Federal Communications Commission, et al.
• Brief for Respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.
• Brief for Respondent Center for Creative Voices in Media, Inc.
• Brief for Respondent NBC Universal, Inc., NBC Telemundo License Co., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., and ABC, Inc.

Amicus briefs

• Brief for National Religious Broadcasters in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Morality in Media, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Parents Television Council in Support of Petitioner
• Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief for the Decency Enforcement Center for Television in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice and United States Representatives Charles Pickering, Roscoe Bartlett, Kevin Brady, Paul Broun, Danny Davis, John Doolittle, Mary Fallin, Trent Franks, Wally Herger, Jim Jordan, Doug Lamborn, Kenny Marchant, Jeff Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Joe Pitts, Mark Souder, Tim Walberg and Dave Weldon in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Directors Guild of America, First Amendment Project, Minnesota Public Radio/American Public Media, the National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Pen American Center, and Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Time Warner, Inc., in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the ABC Television Affiliates in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Public Broadasters in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the National Association of Broadcasters and Radio-Television News Directors Association in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Center for Democracy & Technology and Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow with the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and the Director of PFF’s Center for Digital Media Freedom in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Former FCC Commissioners and Officials in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the Media Institute in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the American Academy of Pediatrics, Benton Foundation, Children Now, National Institute On Media and the Family, Parent Teacher Association, and United Church of Christ, Office of Communications, Inc., in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, New America Foundation, Participatory Culture Foundation, Cuwin Foundation, Ethos Group, ACORN Active Media Foundation, Freenetworks.Org, Monroe Price, Susan Crawford in Support of Neither Party

Along with my friends John Morris and Sophia Cope of the Center for Democracy & Technology, I have just submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the potentially historic free speech case FCC v. Fox, which will be heard in November.

[Reminder: The FCC v. Fox case is the indecency case involving the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives.” I wrote about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision here. The full decision is here. By contrast, the so-called “Janet Jackson case” — CBS v. FCC — took place in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and that court recently handed down a decision that also went against the FCC. I wrote about the Third Circuit’s decision here.]

The FCC v. Fox case could become the most important First Amendment-related Supreme Court case since FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which just turned 30 years old last month. Of course, it could be that the Supreme Court simply sticks to the procedural questions regarding whether the FCC moved too far, too fast in reversing it’s long-standing policy of restraint regarding “fleeting expletives.” That’s essentially what the Second Circuit did. On the other hand, the Supremes might reach the substantive First Amendment issues tied up in the Pacifica case. We just won’t know for sure until the case is handed down.

Regardless, in the joint CDT-PFF amicus brief filed today, we argue that the FCC has both gone too far procedurally and that “the time is rapidly approaching for this Court to find that broadcast, like the Internet and other means of mass communication, ‘is entitled to the highest protection from government intrusion’ and that there is no longer a factual ‘basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.'” Citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 863, 870.”

A more detailed summary of our argument follows below. Our brief contends that the “pervasiveness rationale,” which is the basis of the FCC’s authority to regulate broadcast programming, is being challenged by technological convergence, the proliferation of new media platforms, and the widespread availability of parental control technologies. Video content available over broadcast television is available over a variety of other platforms, such as the Internet and mobile devices, and an increasing number of households subscribe to satellite or cable video services. “With broadcast television being just one of the myriad of ways that people can access lawful content (including indecent content), it no longer makes sense from a constitutional or policy perspective to give broadcast speech less First Amendment protection,” we argue.

Parental controls, such as the V-Chip and set-top box controls, allow parents to block content they deem offensive or inappropriate. Better yet, the rise of VCRs, DVD recorders, video on demand, and digital video recorders means that parents can tailor media consumption to their specific needs and values. Those tools are widely available and provide a less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As a result, the FCC can no longer justify broadcast television content censorship on “pervasiveness” grounds. [I have written much more about that point here, here and here.]

Our joint brief also states that complaint data the FCC cites as justification for the expansion of indecency enforcement, has been inflated through accounting changes. These changes in the way the complaints are counted, which were only instituted for indecency complaints, are in violation of the APA. These complaints, mostly generated by a single advocacy group, cannot be a substitute for an analysis of “community standards” and essentially represent a “heckler’s veto” that violates the First Amendment rights of other viewers.

The brief also cites the Commission’s inconsistent analysis of what it deems “indecent” as a violation of both the First Amendment rights of broadcasters and the APA. The inconsistency in what the FCC finds as indecent has a chilling effect on the free expression of content providers and provides inadequate guidance to broadcasters, which is required under FCC statutes.

The CDT-PFF brief can be found online here and I have also embedded the document below via the Scribd reader. [And those interested in this case might also be interested my recent law review article: “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age.”]

Incidentally, other briefs that have been filed in the matter can be found here. And, last month, I wrote about how personally troubled I was about the lack of support from liberals who have already filed in this case. See: “Liberals Abandoning the First Amendment, Part 3: The Fox Case.”

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.