RSSFCC commissioner: Deregulation promotes big media breakups
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 20, 2007, 11:19 AM
As the FCC considers a plan being devised by its chairman to offer channels 'a la carte' in an effort to promote diversity, opponents in and outside the Commission are arguing it should leave big media alone.
The opposition is growing to US Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin's proposal to invoke a clause in the Cable Communications Act of 1984 to open up cable TV channels to consumer choice. Chairman Martin's aim would be to ensure a more diverse programming lineup is available to customers, rather than the usual slate of basic channels that CATV services typically select for them.
Already, 26 House Republicans including former Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton (R - Texas) and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R - Ill.) have reportedly signed onto a letter to the FCC questioning his conclusions about whether 70% of the US' television viewing public have access to cable television. Martin cited that statistic as having been scientifically determined, though there are many other sources who say that number is far lower.
Martin's aim is to increase the possibility for program diversity, especially for what the government considers "minority viewers." But ironically, it may be those minority viewers who are less likely - especially in urban areas - to have access to cable TV, and whom studies such as Martin cites may have omitted from their calculations. So if more viewers actually need access to more diverse programming, the legal trigger might not be available to make that happen.
That irony was explicitly addressed yesterday by FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, in a speech before the Media Institute in Washington.
"One of our [media] ownership studies...finds that women and people of color are clearly underrepresented in the radio, TV and newspaper industries - no surprise there, sadly," McDowell remarked. "But it also finds that this pattern holds across a broad sampling of industries at relatively similar rates, so that the radio, TV and newspaper businesses are not unique. The study also finds that access to capital is the primary cause of under-representation. Or, to quote Jack Kemp, 'you can't have capitalism without capital.' Accordingly, the study recommends several improvements to the FCC data collection process to track race and gender in ownership. Gathering better data could easily be fixed. Putting incentives in the right place so that it's in the economic interest of businesspeople to solve the access to capital problem? Not so simple."
If the FCC had a better understanding of the problem of media diversity, according to Comm. McDowell, it might be able to put together a more effective set of incentives for combating the problem. The trouble is, the tool it would then need to activate those incentives might be taken away from it, and kept away from it by the US Supreme Court, which McDowell believes helps keep the FCC in "a legal vice grip."
Another tool the FCC might consider, he suggested, are tax deferments for minority-owned media interests, to help them fund better and more diverse programming rather than settle for syndicating what's more readily available.
But McDowell then also suggested that legislators and the FCC should leave CATV well enough alone, because that industry is managing to find its own way and adopt its own standards of fairness and diversity without the government's help. In fact, he suggested, it has been deregulation all this time which has created a newfound spirit of divestiture among media conglomerates.
"The ironic truth is, in many cases, media consolidation has actually become media divestiture," McDowell said. "Companies such as Disney, Citadel, Clear Channel and Belo actually have been shedding properties to raise capital for new ventures. They are directing new capital investment toward new media ventures. That's where America's eyeballs are looking; so that means that's where the ad dollars are flowing. The Hollywood writers' strike is all about the concept of following the eyeballs and ad dollars. For instance, over one-third of Americans go online to get their news. That number is growing. Traditional media's numbers are shrinking."
McDowell did not cite authorities for his statistics, though inevitably and perhaps not so ironically after all, they will likely be called into question, too.
The only people this would save money for is fans of the Watching Grass Grow Channel who have a total of 12 subscribes.
Lets say you pay $10 for a group of 20 channels, one could figure thats $.50 per channel - that might be, if all channels were created equally BUT instead they will be charged based on popularity (and not in a good supply/demand way) so EPSN will be $6, DISNEY will be $5 etc ... if you only subscribe to the $.10 Grass Growing channel then it'll help you, everybody else will loose out ... the small channels won't gain either, less potential people to see them - I'd never subscribe to Grass Growing Channel but I might watch a special when flicking through!
Score: 0
|Now we have the government types discovering yet another human right. The right to not only watch cable television but watch cable television subsidized to include programming that is specifically aimed at your ethnicity/race. I find this entire debate to be about as relevant as trying to decide which color of lead based paint they should coat their toddlers toys with.
Since I believe that watching TV harms children (and makes Adults more stupid as well), I really don't have much stake in what they do with cable. Internet access is a different story, but with the proliferation of wireless providers, that playing field is leveling. I turned off my cable years ago and my family has greatly benefitted as a result. Sure I miss college football now and then (like last weekend), but I get by. I also have not had to explain to my 8 year old what a hummer is (other than the brobdignagian ego surrigate driven by some insecure men). As a consequence, we read more, we talk to each other more and my children's heroes are their parents, not some rebellious teen in a sitcom. My second grade girl now has time for learning Latin, piano, algebra, horseback riding, and Dance (jazz, tap, ballet, irish) but unfortunately will not be attending the Hannah Montana concert.
I don't get hounded for all the newest fad toys that they saw in commercials. I don't have to find ways to entertain my children when they are not watching TV (as many have to do becuase their children begin to think that they should be constantly entertained). They go outside and play instead, or learn new skills or...gasp...talk with their parents.
The most successful, happy, fulfilled and influential people I know don't watch any TV. They are far too busy leading their own lives to need to watch anyone elses through the "boob tube".
Score: 0
|I fail to see what racial diversity has to do with whether people should be free to choose what channels they purchase.
Score: 0
|I really don't think they mean "racial" diversity, but it isn't incredibly clear, is it?
Score: 0
|"One of our [media] ownership studies...finds that women and people of color are clearly underrepresented in the radio, TV and newspaper industries - no surprise there, sadly,"
"Another tool the FCC might consider, he suggested, are tax deferments for minority-owned media interests, to help them fund better and more diverse programming rather than settle for syndicating what's more readily available."
Its clear, it specifically suggests racial diversity.
Score: 0
|Good. Just what we need. Big Gov telling another industry how to operate.
So instead of paying $60 a month for 100 channels, we can pay $70 for the 12 we actually watch.
Yes, please FCC, save me from my overflowing wallet...
Score: 0
|Forcing Cable TV providers to offer individual channel selection will increase the cost per consumer rather than make it cheaper. The package deals are what helps keep costs affordable. With the sheer number of channels available now, it would be a programmers nightmare to keep track of who gets what, too. I agree, leave the big media alone!
Score: 0
|I think you're assuming that people would purchase all the channels individually that they're getting now in packages, which isn't correct. Most people watch a specific subset of those channels, not the hundreds that are available. So if you only purchase those channels that you'd watch, you'd wind up with a smaller bill.
Also, it would take no effort at all to keep track of which subscriber gets which channels. You think a simple database couldn't maintain channel lists?
Score: 0
|"So if you only purchase those channels that you'd watch, you'd wind up with a smaller bill."
So you'd think. $4 a month per channel adds up pretty quickly.
You didn't honestly think they'd take the current number of channels, divide the cost by that and charge the result per channel, did you?
Score: 0
|"You didn't honestly think they'd take the current number of channels, divide the cost by that and charge the result per channel, did you?"
No, for exactly the reason that Martin is trying to fix. You're not paying for an individual channel now, you're paying for that channel plus several others. Using your $4 as a comparison, that $4 is probably 10 channels. So the actual cost of buying the 1 channel you really want out of those 10 could be only $0.40.
Obviously we're just making up numbers here, but common sense says that if some lesser-watched channels are piggy-backing on some bigger channels, then the cost of that bigger channel would include the additional cost of those smaller channels. Let people NOT buy those smaller channels, and the actual price they're paying is less.
Score: 0
|That's what you just did. 4/10=.40.
There's no way they are going to divide the channels up at current costs. Look at IPTV channel pricing for a comparison. (recent SyncTV article, perhaps?)
That $4 wasn't just made up. :)
3 music channels, 2 cartoon channels, our basic network lineup, scifi, the TLC style channels and we're already up to $56. Want a premium movie channel? Those will be more than $4.
Now add equipment charges, line charges, fees. taxes. You don't honestly believe any but the most limited viewers would actually get a deal out of something like this, do you?
Score: 0
|Equipment charges, line charges, fees and taxes are irrelevant, you have to pay those either way. They can be removed from the equation.
You can also ignore premium channel prices, you pay for those a la carte (as in all 10 HBOs together, but only HBOs) in most areas already anyway.
So the only issue is what they'll charge for the individual cable channels, like ESPN or The Learning Channel. If I want those, but I don't want The Food Network (TFN) or The Golf Channel (TGC), both of which would normally be part of a single large package that includes all four channels and probably a dozen others, I'd be paying a hell of a lot less. I get and pay for my two desired channels, and that's it. I'm not paying for TFN or TGC, and I'm also not subsidizing the other worthless (to me) channels that have few viewers and only survived because of the extra fees I was paying before.
Score: 0
|