explosionsinthe

So, how about the recent moves of the FCC? Looks like television ownership rules are laxed, but they're trying to put limits on the radio deregulation too. I think this is why the television deregulation will be awful. The FCC must have realized they messed up with radio (Clear Channel), so why can't they see they're doing the same thing with television?

Maybe i'm just talking out of my ass. Any ideas?

seretogis

Four words:

Cable and Satellite Television.

There are hundreds and hundreds of channels now, and the vast majority if the US population has access to either cable or satellite, so it is no longer really an issue to regulate the public access channels.

I, on the other hand, do not have cable or satellite television even though it is available to me. I don't really depend on television as my sole source for news (thanks, Internet!) so it has pretty much zero effect on me.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

explosionsinthe

I don't know. its kind of easy to say there are more options. I figure that most of the people that get their news off the internet are getting it from a website that's owned by a large consolidated company. Also, while there are plenty cable stations, the networks have the most clout when it comes to presidential elections.

Its also interesting that this hasn't been talked about more in the media. Interesting in the fact its hardly surprising. I mean, the NRA and NOW are both against this. wacky, huh?

seretogis

The NRA has other things to worry about right now that are more important than this.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

The_Dude

i dont think that they should be regulating them in the first place.

it's not what the govt is supposed to do, they have no right to do this.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Cynthetiq

While I may work for a media giant, I still don't think that its a great idea to have a majority of the media held by 2-3 companies. While it's "cost effective" IMHO it's not going to allow fair representation of viewpoints.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

The_Dude

i think that no government intervention would let the companies sort this out.

here is a scenario:

companies start influencing news w/ their viewpoints. so, viewers would likely switch to a different station for the news = loss of ad revenues for the biased station.

i think the "invisible hand" can work here

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

seretogis

This very thing is what contributed to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. If the people don't agree with what the major networks are peddling, the people will go elsewhere.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Cynthetiq

In NYC one of the largest markets....

Viacom (company that I work for...)

for TV news owns CBS, UPN
radio newschannels 1010WINS, 880WCBS
radio music format over 5 stations from Oldies to TOP40
for Cable channels Nickolodeon, MTV, VH1, TNN, CMT, Showtime, BET

The invisible hand cannot work in such a tough market, with little or no selection, you just go to what you can see.
As a news machine they can "censor" or "promote" who they want through their machine.

Now, Sumner Redstone (Viacom), Mel Karmazin (Viacom), Michael Eisner (Disney), Rupert Murdoch (FOX), Steve Case (AOL/TW), all are friends. They protect each other and look out for each other's interests.

There just isn't enough room anymore for an INDEPENDANT channel... even PBS has to fight hard to compete and they get government monies and subsidies from other corporations.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

The_Dude

that's where legislation should kick in.

when these companies work together to prevent competition from rising.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

smooth

Did you change your mind?

You might also consider that we need central conrol over things like airwaves--the market can't sort overlapping frequencies.

The_Dude

what i was against was the government trying to control ownership in media companies(like what you can own and what you cant).

i'm all for limited regulation of what these people do (like to regulate airwaves)

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Cynthetiq

you also said in an earlier post:

You can't have it both ways....I really think you need to look a bit deeper into the media industry because it's very amazing the reach that these people have. The Viacom machine alone can take something from book to movie to cable to video in little under 6 months.

Seretogis: Correct.... at the current regulation.. it's 35% nationwide market share. 35% and 35% leaves the smallest major player to be 30%. Once they up it to 45%, then you'll see 2 large behemoths and one TINY 10% that cannot really compete because their revenue streams are so much smaller. Fox News is currently considered a major player, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show is syndicated on ABC radio in NYC. He's carried on either Clear Channel which owns over 1200 stations and syndicates to over 7,800 stations.

From the ClearChannel.com webiste:
"Clear Channel Radio, which daily reaches 54% of all people ages 18-49 in the U.S., realigned into eight geographical divisions in 2001."

54% and that's just RADIO... put that across the board to the media companies and it's staggering to discover that the little guy can be drowned out very easily.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

The_Dude

what i meant was, govt shouldnt regulate who should own waht, but they should regulate what the owners do.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Cynthetiq

can you give an example? I'm not understanding just how that would play.

If you notice the majors, Viacom/CBS, cross polinates all their products together, as does Disney/ABC, AOL/TimeWarner, and Fox. So they you don't really see advertisements for other products of other media companies. A good example of that would be CBS's music news comes from VH1/MTV and not some other reputable source like Variety or Billboard.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Macheath

This is all my own speculation but:

It feels like there's similar manuvering taking place in the background of Australian politics. Currently our Government is making idle vicious threats towards the national public broadcaster. Meanwhile the three main free-to-air commerical channels are lining up with Microsoft, AOL-Time Warner and ?????? respectively to promote broadband integrated with their own online streaming television broadcasts.

The crucial thing is, most every broadband plan in Australia at the moment is savagely capped to only a few gigabytes - EXCEPT for content approved by the service provider. I forsee people signing up to the Channel 7/AOL broadband plan (for example) and henceforth becoming their bitch: You get our channel's material online for free; but you wanna watch someone else's streaming content? - pay 15 cents a megabyte!

Throw all this in with the impending privatisation of the final vestiges of our telecommunications infrastructure, abandonment of media-crossownership legislation and Rupert Murdoch's complete dominance of all cable television and things are looking fairly dangerous.

So look at our country and see if you can see similar "threads" being drawn across your own country.

I think in the next decade we'll be seeing the current small handful of transnational corporations even more powerful than they now are; more powerful than we could imagine.

Cynthetiq

that's exactly what is already happening to some extent on AOL and on the Viacom channels.. while it does make sense to do the cross polination there still has to be a way to ensure that the minority is also heard.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

smooth

Exactly, I was going to post to Macheath about AOL and their proprietary IM debate which mirrors his concern.

Just to somewhat place this in perspective:

Say if AOL had a mere 10% of the US population (~282 million people) subscribed to their broadband service at ~40 bucks per month. They would gross over 1.1 billion dollars per month just from one service. This doesn't even account for their other AOL products, their Warner Bros., and etc. I don't know how many subscribers they actually have, but I think a modest estimate of gross earnings for a corporation this large is approx. at least a 100 billion dollars per month.

Even though this is just off the top of my head, if this is even close to the case, that much concentration of wealth severely skews the balance of political and cultural power in modern society.

Cynthetiq

I stumbled across this and thought it fitting for the conversation thread.







See the rest of the editorials...

For those that don't know who owns what...

read 'em and weep....
check these links out that descibe what holdings each company has:

AOL/Time Warner

Viacom

Disney

NewsCorp

Now these are up for sale. Viacom is interested in Sci-Fi Channel and USA Networks...Vivendi Universal

Clear Channel has thousands of radio stations across the USA.

You can look at rest of the media giants here

Neil Hickey put together a good Q&A regarding this very subject in 2002.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Charlatan

The airwaves are ours... they are public resources. As such they must be regulated.

While I agree there is a glut of cable and satellite channels that reach the nation I still feel strongly about local programming and more importantly local news and information.

The more these streams of information are consolidated and streamlined the fewer options we have for a diverse and robust media.

Yes the Internet has open this up, but again, the Internet is not always concerned with the local.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

geep

Yet, it's O.K. for the politics of this very same nation to be controlled by only 2 political parties?

Cynthetiq

Last time I looked there wasn't just 2 political parties. There are two major parties and plenty of other parties that you are free to choose from...when I go to vote I see on the ballot a number of different parties besides Democrat and Republican. Perhaps you've never bothered to vote, read the ballot, or even maybe you live on foreign soil and don't know much more than what the media feeds you.

Parallelling that to media is folly since within the party system there are plenty of other party choices. Note the word CHOICES as it means you have a choice, doesn't mean that the candidate will win, but there is a CHOICE. Now as one of my editorial cartoons pointed out the media giants that do control the media outlets, can endorse one particular candidate giving an impression that no other candidate exists or matters.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

geep

I believe the word I used was controlling. When was the last time a third party candidate became President? Has a party other than the Democrats or Republicans ever controlled Congress in the last 100 years? I sometimes find little difference between the two, and any other candidate, for that matter. I have never missed the opportunity to vote.

You're right that parallelling the two is folly. The media is so much more important than our government. Comparing the choices of alternate political parties to local access on the cable system is so unfair to local access viewers. In the 50's and 60's we had 3 major T.V. networks and most areas had one major local newspaper. We've come a long way since then with respect to information sources. Most media sources are market driven and the market will sort them out. I do have a CHOICE, because I can turn the T.V. off and search elsewhere for my information. I don't trust the media now to tell me the truth, why would deregulation make any difference?

Cynthetiq

I don't think that you bothered to look to see who owns what. It's not just about TV, it's about radio, newsprint, publishing, internet, advertising...think you can get away with it by catching it from a different country? Rupert Murdoch (FOX) owns many TV stations and newspapers across the globe.

It simply boils down to the ability to control eyeballs and ears.

As far as your tongue in cheek response to the media with respect to government the problem is a cyclical one. In Britain it's equal air time for all. That's it, that's all that needs to be lobbied for in order to sort out your issue of the two party system. If the rich robber barons and elite can afford to gather up monies, then the poorer candidates should also get that same equal air time. The media companies lobby the government and they will cry poverty that it's too expensive to just give the air time away.

As far as controlling 2 party... look back at the history books and you'll see that USA has always been a two party system since the beginning.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Cynthetiq

Let's pick MUSIC for a good topic.

Market will sort them out. In the late 80's Rick James was upset that his music videos were not played on MTV and cited that the black musician was not represented with the exception of Micheal Jackson.

In the early 90's you could watch music videos on:

The Box
MTV
VH1
BET
CMT
TNN
CTN
MuchMusic

By 2001, MTV bought up all the other companies that could not be profitable and converting them into something else. The Box was bought and shut down. VH1 is MTV sister channel, BET purchased and is currently going through growing pains of becoming part of the MTV Networks standards. CMT and TNN, both purchased in 2001, and CMT directly competes with VH1 Country. CTN (College Television Network) was picked up 2002 and plays Letterman, music videos from MTV rotation, and news segments from CBS) leaving the only competition MuchMusic, which recently relaunced as FUSE.

leaving the battlefield as:

MTV/VH1/BET/CMT/TNN/CTN
vs.
FUSE

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

geep

If the Media controls eyeballs and ears then we have a much larger problem than deregulation. Rupert Murdoch is an excellent example of the market sorting things out. His FOX network news, came from nowhere to topple the standing media giants because he gave a perspective on the news that wasn't previously offered. It really doesn't matter who owns what, so long as I can be part of a free market access. I vote for these people with my pocketbook. If I let them control me, then that was my choice. Again, I might point out the closed atmosphere of ALL media sources in the 50's and 60's. It didn't stay closed because people found there was money to be made by offering an alternative, not because the industry was regulated.

Last I checked, we have equal access laws here, too. The people you vote for can keep these laws viable, so choose carefully who you vote for. (No tongue in cheek intended)

That doesn't make it right or wrong, just status quo. And if you don't like MTV then watch FUSE. If you and others like you do this, their marketshare will grow and MTV's influence will falter. That's the way we vote in a free market society

Cynthetiq

Sorry, the TV industry was deregulated in the 60's, reregulated in the 70's, deregulated in the 80's, and again deregulated in the 90's.

As far as equal access, no we don't have equal access in the manner that the British do. If my memory serves me correctly, it works as such : If the democrats buy 60 minutes of airtime, then the republicans automatically get 60 minutes of airtime, as does the indepenandt. So when Jon Corsine (US Senator NJ spent personal millions of $$$ to BUY airtime, then the opposing incumbent would have received the same air time for free.

Viacom is a HUGE company, as is NewsCorp, like Microsoft, when something comes up on their radar screen, they have very deep pockets to exploit the smaller competition. BET orignal founder didn't ever want to sell his baby to a larger media outlet, until the offer was too sweet to refuse.

MTV products are in almost 3/4's of the nations TV's. Not all markets or cable companies carry FUSE. So, I don't see how there's a choice at all. You can't just call up a different cable company and ask them to host your cable for you. Yes, you can get a dish, but I live in a highrise and don't face Southwest so not an option for me. I still don't see how I have these vast choices.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

geep

I doubt that this regulation or lack thereof had anything to do with investors who were willing to invest because they saw a profitable market. If a market exists there will be people willing to try to make money from it. That is where the expansion of the industry came from, not from government regulation.

In the USA, our equal access means people still have to pay for it, they just can't be turned down if they do. There is still no such thing as a free lunch.

I seem to remember that all those companies were very small once. As far as the owner of BET is concerned, too bad his dream had a price. Neither government deregulation nor big business can be blamed for his lack of conviction.

But you can petition your local cable company to carry a channel. You can also cancel your subscription. No one is forcing you to have cable T.V. I'm sure if you raised enough of a stink about it (activism), FUSE would be catapulted from obscurity.

Cynthetiq

geep...I'm looking at your comments as simply opinion as you don't seem to know about the history of facts that have happened within the industry, or even how it works in today's current setup. I work within the industry. I'm friends with some of the Sr. Management of MTV and Viacom. I've asked them questions about these same topics.

You seem to say that the market should let it all shake itself out. That's nice and all. I don't see it happening at all. Just like small companies cannot compete in getting competitive pricing because of volume it works that same way for the media outlets. They buy from themselves, and sell to themselves.

You can call your cable company and ask until you are blue in the face. Cablevision refused to carry YES (Yankees channel) and then when they finally did it was under extreme government pressure from the governor of NY. In fact under the agreement that they made, they pay less than any other cable operator, and if a current one tries to get the same deal, Cablevision is to pay for all court costs assocaiated with that challenge.

Expansion of the industry came from government regulation, the cable industry was heavily regulated in the 70's.

Viacom was never really a small company, it was a library owned by CBS and in the 70's the regulations changed limiting the ownership of libraries and CBS had to sell it off.

Why should I raise the stink? Shouldn't they be allowed to be carried and not bullied into obscurity by the larger outlets? Even if I did as did millions of yankee fans, Cablevision did not bow until the governor stepped in.

No free lunch for equal access? It costs a few million dollars to run for president, no longer can you say to a son,"One day you can be president." A competent person who has the abilities should not be shirked because they cannot afford to campaign. (this is a whole different argument/thread)

Cancel my subscription? Cut off my nose to spite my face? I think that you really need to think this out a little bit clearer, this isn't about REMOVING all choices, but making sure that the market will bear what it can fairly and evenly and still provide choices.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

geep

Sounds like the person who negotiated the deal with the cable company in your area should be fired or maybe even run out of town, he sure gave away the baby wth the bathwater. Believe me the deal was negotiated, too. In my community we negotiated a more sensible contract with the cable company. Someone who represented you and your community had to sign. He or she is just as much to blame as the cable company. Despite what you think of me, I am not ignorant enough to believe that regulation caused the growth in any industry, let alone cable television. No matter what regulation there is, if people do not believe they can invest and make a profit, (ie. there is a market) an industry will not grow. People do not throw their money away, just because the government has a regulation or two. I will concede that regulation may have encouraged growth but it did not cause it. That is not opinion, either, just basic economics. And by the way, just because you don't like the choice, doesn't mean they don't exist.

You're right about Viacom, my bad. I just saw Microsoft and ignored the rest of the list. Sorry.

Cynthetiq

I'm sorry I do not understand the "representavie who negotiated the contract with the cable company" you mean the YES network people? or the Cable company and who's neighborhood they are allowed to operate within?

If you mean what neighborhood, then it's via the government again because the government handed out protected monopolies in the 70's and still to this day protects them.

The cable companies (affiliates) deal directly with the channels, there's no "community" person that I know of at least not in the NYC Metro area.

Reglulations exist to some degree for all industries. It's just a matter of how much regulation. Look at the Pharmacuetical industry. A VERY heavily regulated industry and they have had stellar profits in the past 8 years. Yes, some of their activity has been deregulated such as televsion advertising, ability to supply doctors with junkets, and payoffs for recommending their drugs. Testing for new drugs has been shortened from 10 years to as little as 3 years. Their R&D groups are under heavy pressure to produce profitable drugs that take many years to test and bring to market.

In the past 7 years, there are many people who have died or have dibilitating problems due to medicines that were not properly tested nor given adequate testing time.

So regulations have some protections. If they don't. then drive your car without your seat belt on. There are plenty of regulations out there that are good.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

geep

I am not debunking regulations nor am I promoting them. Some regulations do give players in a market an undue advantage. All the more reason to get rid of them IMO. As far as the cable thing goes, where I live the cable companies were given monopolies in certain locations, but several companies vied for the monopoly rights from local governments by presenting competing contract to the city council. The local government chose what they felt was the best deal (the council probably all got t-shirts or trips to Hawaii from the winning bidder) and awarded the contract. This may not have been the case in your area, if so I apologize.

smooth

I don't agree that some regulations give players an undue advantage.

I actually think the norm is more often the opposite of that.

Regulations ensure a level playing field (or, at least attempt to equalize one's chances of operating within the market). They create an essential benchmark that other's can compete against.

US citizens seem to believe that a meritocratic society demands us to do our best that everyone fends for his or herself.

I think that a meritocratic society is more accurately described as a society that ensures the independant variable for success is one's merit--not structural (dis)advantages one encounters in his or her life. Just like the science we rely on so heavily for answers, the controlling agent must minimize or eradicate extraneous variables in order to observe the variable being measured.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Cynthetiq

I agree, I think of it as handicapping to ensure competition. While the telephone industry was deregulated there are still some regulations that describe and detail just how the regional bells interface and interact with the long distance and local bells. While it seems like there is just Verizon, Sprint, MCI, AT&T there are even smaller companies that are given the opportunity to compete due to the regulations.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Cynthetiq

***UPDATE ***

June 19, 2003
Panel Votes to Overturn Some New F.C.C. Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON -- The Senate Commerce Committee voted Thursday to overturn parts of a Federal Communications Commission decision freeing media companies from decades-old ownership limits and allowing them to buy more outlets and merge in new ways.

The proposal, which faces an uncertain future in the full Senate and a tough road in the House, would roll back changes that allowed individual companies to own television stations reaching nearly half the nation's viewers and combinations of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same city.

"I would like the FCC to start all over," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who opposes the changed rules. She said they are "potentially dangerous to media diversity in this country."

Many media companies wanted relaxed rules, saying the old restrictions limited their ability to grow and provide better services in a market changed by cable TV, satellite broadcasts and the Internet. The broadcast networks say the changes will aid in keeping free TV alive by helping them compete with pay services for quality programming.

The rules, originally adopted between 1941 and 1975, were created to promote diversity of opinion in the media, encourage competition and prevent a few big companies from controlling what people see, hear and read.

The Republican-controlled FCC relaxed those rules on June 2 with a 3-2 party-line vote.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., would roll back the national ownership limit so a company can own TV stations reaching only 35 percent of U.S. households instead of 45 percent. The bill passed by a voice vote.

The proposed legislation also would reinstate a ban on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. However, it would allow state regulators to recommend to the FCC exemptions for small communities where a merger may be needed to support media outlets in financial trouble.

The bill also would clarify the FCC's authority to strengthen as well as relax media ownership restrictions, a question raised by courts that have rejected past rule changes.

Another component of the bill would require the FCC to hold at least five public hearings on future ownership rule changes before voting. Lawmakers criticized the agency for not seeking more public comment before its June 2 decision.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and other lawmakers say they also will try other legislative methods to overturn the changes.

"The airwaves belong to the people," Dorgan said. "The FCC ignores that requirement and advances corporate interests at the expense of the public's interest."

It's unclear how far these proposals will get beyond the Senate Commerce Committee. Challenges to the FCC rules face stiffer opposition in the House, where Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, supports the changes.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell and the two other Republicans on the five-member commission pushed through the changes despite opposition from two Democratic commissioners and a diverse circle of critics that included media moguls Ted Turner and Barry Diller, consumer advocates, civil rights and religious groups, writers, musicians, unions and the National Rifle Association.

Even without new legislation, legal challenges to the rules are expected from consumer groups seeking stiffer restrictions and media companies wanting even more deregulation.

News Corp., owner of Fox, and Viacom Inc., which owns CBS and UPN, benefit from the higher national TV ownership cap because mergers have pushed the media giant above the 35 percent level. The companies could be forced to sell stations if a new law is enacted and upheld in court.

The major networks wanted the cap eliminated, while smaller broadcasters said a higher cap would allow the networks to gobble up stations and take away local control of programming.

A 1996 law requires the FCC to study the rules every two years and repeal or modify regulations determined to no longer be in the public interest.

Powell says meeting the two-year schedule is too difficult. The committee is to vote June 26 on broad changes to how the FCC operates, including extending the media review period to five years.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.