- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Media Matters
The FCC's War on Broadcasting
Since its founding, the U.S. has gone on the offensive to defend the nation, liberate allies, or to defeat a domestic scourge. Domestically, it launched wars on poverty, drugs, and illiteracy, just to name a few.
Yet for the first time, the federal government has launched a war against an entire -- and completely legal -- industry: broadcast television.
The Federal Communications Commission has made little effort to hide its goal of ending free television. The recent -- and perhaps most brazen -- act was the appointment by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski of a Duke University Law Professor to serve as the commission's architect to dismantle the nation's 1,600 television stations. Sound like hyperbole? Consider the following.
Last month, Genachowski appointed Stuart Benjamin, who referred to broadcast television as "a powerful source of homogenization and pablum," as a key advisor on spectrum policy and First Amendment matters. Last May, Duke University published a paper by Benjamin titled "Roasting the Pig to Burn Down the House: A Modest Proposal." Benjamin recommends the FCC impose onerous "broadcast regulations that seem undesirable on their own terms but that may result in such harms to broadcasting that broadcasting leaves the [radio-TV] spectrum."
Benjamin argues in favor of "new regulations on broadcasters that will make broadcasting unprofitable." He suggests "some regulations will impose costs on broadcasters and not only have no benefits but also impose additional costs in their effects (e.g., make programming worse)." Benjamin favors regulatory measures that "will reduce the viewership of broadcasting and thus hasten the demise of broadcasting -- what I [Benjamin] would regard as a win-win."
Further, Benjamin notes that "every dollar of additional costs for broadcasters is one less dollar of profit, and thus reduces the attractiveness of over-the-air broadcasting as a business model." He suggests "onerous record-keeping requirements, ascertainment requirements" and other regulations that have no public interest benefit and "will likely be pure cost."
One source for levying expensive regulatory burdens could originate with the FCC's 2008 Report on Localism, Benjamin suggests. As such, the FCC could rely on the efforts of Mark Lloyd, the agency's diversity czar and former fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress.
In 2006, Lloyd wrote "freedom of speech or the press… is all too often an exaggeration" and that "the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance." Lloyd even applauded the seizure of independent media outlets by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
Benjamin employs a straw man argument in his treatise that ridding the nation of broadcast television would free up the radio-TV spectrum for other uses resulting in "hundreds of billions of dollars" in auction proceeds for the government. However, reality contradicts Benjamin's assertion. The recent auction of the much sought after 700 MHz band vacated by UHF TV stations during the just-completed transition to digital TV netted less than $20 billion. An entire block of spectrum estimated to fetch several billion dollars went unsold.
From an engineering perspective, there are more attractive portions of the spectrum that are better suited for use by cellular phone companies -- for whom Benjamin implies he is shilling. In addition, the government controls large swaths of spectrum that lie fallow or are grossly underutilized. Large chunks of spectrum reserved for unlicensed devices dwarf the less than 300 MHz slice of spectrum used by all of the nation's TV stations.
Even wireless companies have not fully utilized their existing spectrum. AT&T is operating the bulk of its cell phone service on outdated 2.5G technology and has yet to fully upgrade to yesterday's 3G technology; yet, the carrier is demanding more spectrum to support its niche iPhone service (while simultaneously informing customers that there are indeed limits to its "unlimited" service).
This is what should most alarm the public. Moving broadcast television to subscription-only platforms such as cable and satellite or shutting down the service altogether eliminates a free, mass media First Amendment vehicle.
While local television is currently in the FCC's crosshairs, broadcast radio is no doubt somewhere on the agenda. One only has to look to remarks from Administration officials, including those by the President himself, to conclude that talk radio is on the President's "naughty and not nice" list.
Silencing dissent can be very attractive to those who wish to implement unpopular programs. How the FCC handles the Comcast-NBC Universal merger will be telling. Just hours after the merger was reached, Comcast Chairman Brian Roberts publicly announced his complete support of President Obama's policies. NBC properties including MSNBC and NBC News were already firmly in the Obama camp.
Benjamin -- perhaps inadvertently -- discloses in his paper that local television news poses an obstacle to realizing his scheme. He notes "the easiest and most effective way for members of Congress to reach their constituents without having to pay for advertising is to appear at a community event that is covered by the local television station." Benjamin is concerned local news coverage may lead Congress to resist his proposal and instead act to "protect broadcast television."
One aspect of broadcast television Benjamin finds deeply objectionable is advertising. In a 2004 paper, he wrote "the advertising model appears to do a worse job of capturing, and therefore reflecting, the value of programming to viewers." He argues only subscription television accurately reflects the public's entertainment demands. Sadly, Benjamin conveniently ignores the fact that local broadcast stations account for half of all TV viewing even when engulfed in a sea of cable and satellite channels.
The FCC's attempt to manipulate how the public receives its news and entertainment is already garnering some interest on Capitol Hill. Congressman Darrell Issa, the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has demanded the identities of the Commission's 150-member National Broadband Task Force. According to Issa, as many as two-thirds of the task force members are "lobbyists and industry insiders" on loan from industries that have direct interests in the outcome of the task force recommendations.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Two Days in Washington
- Will 2010 be Another 1994?
- Forgiveness in Hollywood
ADVERTISEMENT
Mattled| 1.26.10 @ 8:16AM
Mr. Hyman,
How about starting L.A.P.--Local Affiliate Project?
With Diane Sawyer, George Stephapologist, Katie Couric et al rambling and allowing their one-sided coverage every night, Sinclair could start LAP (with Breitbarts help?).
The day after a biased unbalanced story, do a segment in local news providing balance---perhaps a GM or other guest. Air at 6:00 before the evening news or at 6:00 a.m. to balance GMA or Today before they air. Do the same for 60-Minutes of Propaganda on the Sunday evening local news.
As you know, without the media, Obama would never have been elected. They are providing him with 3-5 Billion in free PR.
Local affiliates have a responsibility to inform their local community. The networks allegiance is to the DNC. Typically the local news viewer stays with the network news of that affiliation.
Your article here sounds like they are declaring war. How about playing offense? You can't win by defense alone.
MSNBC? How about having a mass effort for people to say --"I will PAY 1 extra dollar per month on my cable bill if you DROP MSNBC from my line-up". The sub fee for MSDNC is "$.35?
Pay $1.35 to not have it!! It would be very hard to turn that down.
republicanblack| 1.26.10 @ 10:43PM
I am sorry to say you have it all wrong. You don't know the history of the case, remember this was based on Hilary...so how does that help Obama? You should take a look at this article it speaks to the how, why, and the where from: I am sure you will change your tune
http://wendygdphillips.wordpre.....ted-v-fec-–-american-jurisprudence-at-its-best-or-partisanship/
Mattled| 1.26.10 @ 8:31AM
See what I mean?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/t.....ro-lifers-
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 9:11AM
Duh! I have a good idea. Let the viewers decide what they want to watch.
No, we gotta' look beyond the "what are they doing?" to "what are their goals?"
Ladies and gentlemen, their goals are nothing less than what Rush already calls the broadcast networks..."The State Controlled Media".
The networks have already been intimidated into being shills...but in the communists' minds, (pardon the shorthand), the networks just aren't effective enough as shills and pure propaganda outlets.
Al Adab| 1.26.10 @ 11:02AM
Dogone it Ken. You have to get over your attachment to free markets. After all, our betters, the elected elites, know what is best for us and central planning certainly is superior to your free markets. Just look at the successes of all the centraly planned economies around the world like the USSR or Sweden or..., well never mind. :)
Margie| 1.26.10 @ 9:19PM
Indeed, Ken. And what is their goal? Complete power. Snuff out free speech, They're already pumping our children full of their anti-Christ propaganda (that would be the Left's philosophy on life in general). So they must snuff out any words of truth being spoken on the airwaves as well.
Rev. Richard Wurmbrand who spent 14 years in Communist prisons came here and spoke before congress (I think it the 60's) to warn us about the Communists. He predicted it would take over the U.S. back then. I think of him often these days. He has written many books on the subject. One being "Marx & Satan." And "Tortured for Christ." His books are historical accounts of Communism and Nazism, how they operated, etc. It is EXACTLY the same way it is happening right now with this gang in OUR White House.
www.persecution.com/
James Pawlak| 1.26.10 @ 9:33AM
You forget the warsguns against distilled spirits, tobacco, guns, free association (Movie industry "black list") and free speech (During World War One).
Sean Parnell| 1.26.10 @ 9:35AM
Well, it's nice to see someone finally admit that piling regulatory burden upon regulatory burden in the broadcast industry does in fact make it more difficult for broadcasters to continue. This story would be front page on every paper in the country if they were trying to put print media out of business with similar schemes.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
justamom| 1.26.10 @ 9:44AM
Be very afraid.
They are trying to limit radio.
They are trying to limit TV.
They are trying to limit Internet.
See a pattern?
SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 3:03PM
I'm not afraid--there are more of us than there are of them!
There's power in numbers and we've got the numbers.
Ray| 1.26.10 @ 10:04AM
Subscription-only Broadcast Television? That was tired before, in the 80's with Subscription-only UHV signals. It failed, miserably! Let's not repeat that same mistake.
You can't force every broadcaster to go "digital" and then force everyone else to PAY to receive those broadcasts. That's a lose-lose situation.
victor| 1.26.10 @ 10:26AM
Ray:
"It failed, miserably! Let's not repeat that same mistake."
That is the whole point, to force them to run programming that we won't listen to and so they will lose money, go out of business and then the State takes them over.
That is the whole point of "Net Neutrality".
Government Run Broadcasting!
Ray| 1.26.10 @ 10:05AM
That should read UHF and not UHV. My Bad!
Ray| 1.26.10 @ 10:11AM
"According to Issa, as many as two-thirds of the task force members are "lobbyists and industry insiders" on loan from industries that have direct interests in the outcome of the task force recommendations."
Hay, idiot, I WANT the people who run the industries or your "task force." That's called representation. What do you want? Do you want the government to regulate and tax those corporations and then REFUSE them proper representation? It seems that you do. What part of Don't Tread On Me" don't you understand?
Tim| 1.26.10 @ 10:31AM
The switch to digital put an end to free tv for me: you can't get the digital signals. Trees , buildings and hills all disrupt them.
Oldefarte| 1.26.10 @ 11:27AM
As some of you have already implied, the first act that dictators take is to assume military/governmental control of all means of communication to their captured public; and that is what this current administration is seeking to perform!!!!!!
Dixie Pixie| 1.26.10 @ 11:30AM
If you are interested in in who has control of the radio spectrum the Radio Spectrum Allocation Chart can be found at ::::
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF
It is hard to see but the biggest “owner” of the spectrum is the US military followed by the other governmental agencies.
Tony in Central PA| 1.26.10 @ 12:04PM
Again, we see the liberal monomania of centralization, the hatred of things small and independent in the battle to end liberty. Hopefully, the machine had its Stalingrad experience in Massachusetts and will now have to get used to losing fights like this.
daddio| 1.26.10 @ 12:59PM
Nope-they will just grow 3 more head where the one was lopped off. Need to kill the thing at the root.
Doctor Right| 1.26.10 @ 12:12PM
This pointy-headed Duke S.O.B. is typical of the Left's true face and true goals:
Eliminate dissent by any means necessary.
The Left, especially these know-nothing, America-hating excrement peddlers in academia might want to start reading the tea leaves. To paraphrase one of their heroes - The times, they ARE a changin'. We on the Right, we who actually understand and support the US Constitution, will no longer be satisfied simply to defeat you at the polls (which we will do in November). Our goal now is to destroy your power - utterly, and completely.
Together with Obama, you a-holes have awakened a sleeping giant - and that giant is pissed.
Just try and suppress our 1st-Amendment rights, you piss-ant. And if you try, you'd better succeed, 'cuz when you don't, there's a world of hurt coming your way.
LeChat| 1.26.10 @ 12:19PM
The thing to remember is that there are more of us than there are of them. Let the Democrats die the death of a thousand cuts. We'll remember in November.
Arnepaul| 1.26.10 @ 12:47PM
I have some insider info on their plans for censorship it includes XXXXXXXX and not surprisingly, XXXXXXX is also part of their agenda. I hope this sheds some light on a few points of discussion.
(This reply follows the new FCC format)
NavyBrat| 1.26.10 @ 1:02PM
"the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
I see with this quote, Mr. Loyd is channeling his inner Nazi/Communist. Think I exaggerate?
"It is the absolute right of the state to suprevise the formation of public opinion."...Joseph Goebbels
"The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy’s cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this."...Lenin
Comforting, huh?
Liberal Reader| 1.26.10 @ 5:42PM
Brat --
A little history lesson. Goebbels was a virulent anti-communist, as were all Nazis. The idea that you can be a communist and a Nazi is ridiculous. It's like saying an animal can be a squirrel and a moose.
B) The quotes you compare to one another are more interesting in their differences than in their similarities. The first quote merely points out that the CONTEXT and CONDITIONS of speech matter. If I chain you up in a dungeon somewhere and tell you you have the right to say whatever you wish, I haven't honored your freedom of expression. If I say you can SAY whatever you wish, but you may not publish it or broadcast it, I have not honored your freedom of expression.
In other words, the situation is simply more complicated than you are willing to allow. Frankly, it makes you sound quasi-fascistic.
NavyBrat| 1.26.10 @ 7:51PM
liberal reader. I don't need your revisionist history lesson. Goebbels was, indeed, a fan of the communists, but tamped down his sentiment after his voicing of it started a row in 1933-34 Berlin. Just because the two wound up coming to blows doesn't mean that the ideologies aren't peas of the same pod.
Hitler dispised communism only because he viewed it as "tainted" by Marx, a self loathing Jew. Hitler's aspirations were the same as those of ANY communist despot, with just a little more racism & nationalism thrown in for "flavor." As Jonah Goldberg describes it, it boils down to "the differance between Coke & Pepsi."
So please, liberal reader, spare me your concern for my sounding like a "quasi fanatic." Maybe you should try to educate yourself a little bit more before you start thorwing around your assertions of people's "fanatacism." Frankly, it make you sound just plain ignorant.
Margie| 1.26.10 @ 9:08PM
Bravo Navy Brat, Bravo!
shine| 1.26.10 @ 8:25PM
Nazis were/are fascists. Communists are fascists. Understand the connection Liberal Reader? Fascism always comes from the Left.
" In reality they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constitutients, seeking to dominate and control the same social space. The fact that they aappear as polar opposites is a trick of intellectual history and (more to the point) the result of a concerted propaganda effort on the part of "Reds" to make the "Browns" appear objectively evil and "other" . . . . But in terms of their theory and practice, the differences are minimal." [from Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg] - highly recommended reading for all you liberal idiot drones who think you are intellectual's fighting the good fight. You are a drone - dumb ass.
NavyBrat| 1.26.10 @ 9:01PM
Shine. Thanks for the actual quote from his book. I haven't gotten it yet, but I did hear his summation of the same point on the Glenn Beck documentary from last Friday. His Coke/Pepsi analogy was one of the most clever & succinct ways I've ever heard the argument phrased.
John Blake| 1.26.10 @ 1:28PM
Was this grosse Herr Professor Julius Genochowski by any chance a signatory to the Gang of 88's blood libel of the Duke lacrosse team, the faculty lynch mob so dear to infamous false-prosecutor Mike Nifong [lists of Gang Members are inactive on the Web]? Whether or not he "lent his voice to the
protest", who expects any Banana Administration appointment to possess the slightest integrity or even common sense? Smear-and-ruin is these grotesque porkers' stock in trade.
2Gunz| 1.26.10 @ 2:15PM
Amazing, they make everyone who views over the air TV get new antennas and the infamous converter boxes, just so they can get rid of OTA TV. Brilliant bunch of a$$holes.
Smitty| 1.26.10 @ 3:07PM
These Marxists are sneaky, but they're such ham-fisted idiots all I can do is laugh at them.
Good thing our adversaries are IQ challenged meatheads.
Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 3:24PM
The American Spectator : The FCC's War on Broadcasting American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 3:51PM
The American Spectator : The FCC's War on Broadcasting | Promotional Media Marketing links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 1.26.10 @ 5:35PM
The point is that freedom of speech without opportunity for expression is meaningless.
Say a Hollywood corporation (like Paramount Pictures) purchased time on every network in the month before an election to celebrate teaching the glories of anal sodomy in elementary schools.
As soon as they learned outraged religious organizations were attempting to purchase time to counter their message, they simply -- by virtue of their massive treasury -- purchased the time out from under them, we'd have a free speech crisis.
Now, your friends on the Supreme Court would say, "Hey, no. Money is speech, and if Paramount has more money than the Heartland Baptist Church, then too bad for Heartland."
I find it amazing to see Tea Partiers completely ignoring the implications of these issues in light of last weeks SCOTUS decision.
The wholesomeness of their argument once rested on their sense that too many lobbyists and special interests were setting the terms of the debate in DC, thus drowning the voices of average Americans. Perhaps the charges that the Tea Party movement was just astro-turf laid down by huge corporate donors had some validity ....
Margie| 1.26.10 @ 9:05PM
Liberal Reader... if you only just made SENSE once in awhile!
SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 10:08PM
Lib Reader and Ellie Light of Axelrod Astroturf fame faithfully toil in the field of disinformation for their beloved 'Dear Leader' Obama.
Left or Right, who cares which direction tyranny comes from? Velvet throated propagandists like Lib Reader are true believers who pose a real threat to our Republic. The troll lives to obfuscate.
Margie| 1.26.10 @ 10:38PM
Very, very well said, SoCon. I wish the real person inside the screen name did not choose to have the mindset that they are choosing because it is the wrong one, and a sad one. Both for them and for the country.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 8:02PM
Hi Lib lip reader.
You have free speech here at am spec...and you are just as stupid as you are in your "other" life.
Uh...do you have another life?
I am astroturf... I live in Houston ...we invented it for the astrodome.
We thought grass would grow under the dome...but it would not...oops.
Sir, you are never going out in the real world to demand free speech. You and Bob will hide behind your computers, (you think...heh heh heh).
Many of us here have grown "zippers" for your spouting off rights...so go for it.
Please don't mind when we LOAO at your childishness.
(Uh...a "zipper" is a line of stitches gathered protecting your right to be an idiot.)
Tell us something...anything...you have done for Americans.
JimE| 1.26.10 @ 8:27PM
Communicate with tyrants via wireless, use frequency 7.62 OR 5.56 mm.
Air Yeezy| 1.26.10 @ 9:29PM
air jordan 3
air jordan 4
Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 10:43PM
The FCC’s War on Broadcasting links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 1.27.10 @ 7:44AM
Whatever happened to the liberal's vaunted support for "tolerance" and the "big tent?"
News Hound| 1.27.10 @ 11:01AM
Mr. Hyman,
I live in a TV market where two network affiliates are owned by Sinclair. My observations of your company's value to the public:
1. Horrible broadcast signal quality or none at all in any part of the DMA more than 30 miles from your tower .
2. Local "news" operation a joke. Other locally-produced programming non-existent.
3. Fewer than 4% of the people who watch your stations receive them over-the-air.
4. Most viewers get your Network programming through a cable or DBS subscription. Those who don't can easily access it online for free, because the networks deliver it AROUND you direct to your would-be viewers.
5. Your stations once served a public purpose. Today they are on an accelerating and irreversible path to irrelevance. They bring ever-declining value to the table, both as a distribution platform and as a source for local news. There is no longer a reason to allow you to use the public airwaves for free.
gene Hauber| 1.27.10 @ 2:07PM
these guys, genachowski, benjamin and lloyd should be shot before they can take another UN-AMERICAN breath..........no kidden
bill-tb| 1.28.10 @ 1:54PM
In the pursuit of social justice, we should not overlook the need for emergency broadcasting. We live in hurricane country, and during a hurricane broadcast is the only thing you can depend on. All the big local broadcasters participate in our state emergency broadcasting, to protect against one or more taken down by the disaster event
Crimping Tool| 1.28.10 @ 7:10PM
Manufacture Crimping Tools,such as terminal crimping tool,wire crimping tool,ratchet crimping tool,pneumatic crimping tool and battery-powered crimping tool.
Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 11:15PM
In the News – 01/26/2010 « Rainy Skies links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Office 2007 Professional| 1.29.10 @ 1:35AM
Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate
Pingback| 2.1.10 @ 2:32AM
Turkey welcomes Euronews broadcasting in Turkish : Infowars Ireland | Promotional Med links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: