> One long-standing rule repealed Thursday prevented one company in a given media market from owning both a daily newspaper and a TV station
> Another rule blocked TV stations in the same market from merging with each other if the combination would leave fewer than eight independently owned stations
> The agency also took aim at rules restricting the number of TV and radio stations that any media company could simultaneously own in a single market.
Now, let me first say that Trump and Ajit Pal have been, are and will be a disaster for media and broadband regulation. That out of the way, let me say this:
These rules were crafted in an era when we had:
- Local newspapers
- A limited number of more broadly distributed papers (state, national)
- 3 Broadcast TV networks (4 including PBS) where local stations were affiliates.
- The importance of radio for entertainment and news
- Limited market penetration of cable TV and far less channels and content choice than we have today
So compare that to today:
- We can have a virtually unlimited number of TV channels through cable and the Internet
- Radio has a vastly greater array of options through satellite radio (eg Sirius) and the Internet (eg podcasts)
- Newspapers are a dying breed, replaced with online news distribution.
- The barrier to entry to creating, promoting and getting an audience for, say, a local issue blog is comparatively cheap now. Previously it either wasn't possible or was orders of magnitude more difficult.
So it would be foolish to say the the media landscape hasn't changed drastically in 40 years.
Now the devil is in the details here. So if there can be less than 8 independent stations in a market, how many can there be? 6? 4? 3? 2? Because there's a difference.
Honestly there's far more scandalous and outright dangerous things to get outraged about with this administration.
Just because the landscape has changed does not mean that the rule is irrelevant today. This change is politically motivated, not one of "this rule is outdated".
There's a very low barrier to entry for new tech companies these days, but they all get bought out by Facebook, Google, Amazon. The end result, despite this low barrier to entry, is a conglomeration of power. If a single company buys up many small media companies and forces content, there is incredible power in that and frankly one of the most dangerous things that this administration has actually accomplished. Sinclair is just one example.
> Radio has a vastly greater array of options through satellite radio (eg Sirius)
Satellite radio is one provider since the XM/Sirius merger. Broadcast radio is vastly more consolidated in ownership and in operation within each of the small number of ownership groups.
Radio may provide a greater illusion of choice with more stations in the dial, but there is less actual diversity in control.
The rationale that seems to be put forth now is that there's so much competition between mediums that it's ok to allow monopolies of each one of them.
I think this is absurd of course, but that's the argument that's always made implicitly or explicitly.
It's also scary as hell because ISPs have disproportionate control.
And once they're granted all sorts of freedoms to screw over consumers, it's going to be a lot more difficult to take it away from them.
All Pai has to do is set the ball rolling and it won't stop.
I don't really see a political landscape in the near future where you have anti-monopoly laws being enforced. All the current corporate monopoly whores will have to die of old age first.
If all of your alternative media sources are available via the Internet, there is one decent internet service provider in your area, and network neutrality rules are suspended, then we're back to just a couple companies (or one) that control what media is available in an area.
Barrier for entry is lower, but it's also harder to get paid for local news. Local coverage of political activities pretty much sucks except in major cities.
> One long-standing rule repealed Thursday prevented one company in a given media market from owning both a daily newspaper and a TV station
> Another rule blocked TV stations in the same market from merging with each other if the combination would leave fewer than eight independently owned stations
> The agency also took aim at rules restricting the number of TV and radio stations that any media company could simultaneously own in a single market.
Now, let me first say that Trump and Ajit Pal have been, are and will be a disaster for media and broadband regulation. That out of the way, let me say this:
These rules were crafted in an era when we had:
- Local newspapers
- A limited number of more broadly distributed papers (state, national)
- 3 Broadcast TV networks (4 including PBS) where local stations were affiliates.
- The importance of radio for entertainment and news
- Limited market penetration of cable TV and far less channels and content choice than we have today
So compare that to today:
- We can have a virtually unlimited number of TV channels through cable and the Internet
- Radio has a vastly greater array of options through satellite radio (eg Sirius) and the Internet (eg podcasts)
- Newspapers are a dying breed, replaced with online news distribution.
- The barrier to entry to creating, promoting and getting an audience for, say, a local issue blog is comparatively cheap now. Previously it either wasn't possible or was orders of magnitude more difficult.
So it would be foolish to say the the media landscape hasn't changed drastically in 40 years.
Now the devil is in the details here. So if there can be less than 8 independent stations in a market, how many can there be? 6? 4? 3? 2? Because there's a difference.
Honestly there's far more scandalous and outright dangerous things to get outraged about with this administration.