All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Broadcast Ownership Regulation in a Border Era: An Analysis of how the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is Shaping the Debate on Broadcast Ownership Limits
Unformatted Document Text:  2 The focus of the analysis will be on how the FCC is shaping its review of broadcast ownership limits, as well as the implications of its approach for the future structure of broadcast ownership in the United States. Primary data used in this analysis will consist of the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking document (FCC 02-249) released on September 23, 2002 regarding its consideration of broadcast ownership rules, as well as official press releases of the FCC and speeches given by its chairman. In addition, our analysis will examine the 12 studies the FCC has commissioned to assess media ownership consolidation. We will not assess the validity of the research done in these twelve studies (as we expect several others will have addressed this aspect throughout the comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). Rather, we analyze how the studies described the nature and significance of the issues in predominantly economic terms, and how the FCC may use these studies to characterize the subject of broadcast ownership rules. WHY THE FCC IS REVIEWING BROADCAST OWNERSHIP LIMITS AGAIN On September 12, 2002 the FCC initiated its third Biennial Regulatory Review of Broadcast Ownership Rules pursuant to Title II, Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which mandated that the FCC review its media ownership rules to determine “whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.” As Aufderheide (1999) has pointed out, the 1996 Act represents the “ideological architecture of a new era in communication policy” in which the law explicitly equates a competitive market with the public interest (pp. 73-74). Moreover, as Aufderheide (1999) has also pointed out, the FCC was “given a crucial and central role” in determining how the public interest could best be served by the market, rather than regulation, “partly because legislators tended to resolve ambiguity conflicts among themselves by saying that the FCC would figure out how to make it work” (pp. 61-62).

Authors: Blevins, Jeffrey. and Brown, Duncan.
first   previous   Page 3 of 29   next   last



background image
2
The focus of the analysis will be on how the FCC is shaping its review of broadcast ownership
limits, as well as the implications of its approach for the future structure of broadcast ownership
in the United States. Primary data used in this analysis will consist of the FCC’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking document (FCC 02-249) released on September 23, 2002 regarding its
consideration of broadcast ownership rules, as well as official press releases of the FCC and
speeches given by its chairman. In addition, our analysis will examine the 12 studies the FCC
has commissioned to assess media ownership consolidation. We will not assess the validity of
the research done in these twelve studies (as we expect several others will have addressed this
aspect throughout the comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). Rather, we
analyze how the studies described the nature and significance of the issues in predominantly
economic terms, and how the FCC may use these studies to characterize the subject of broadcast
ownership rules.
WHY THE FCC IS REVIEWING BROADCAST OWNERSHIP LIMITS AGAIN
On September 12, 2002 the FCC initiated its third Biennial Regulatory Review of
Broadcast Ownership Rules pursuant to Title II, Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, which mandated that the FCC review its media ownership rules to determine “whether
any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.” As Aufderheide
(1999) has pointed out, the 1996 Act represents the “ideological architecture of a new era in
communication policy” in which the law explicitly equates a competitive market with the public
interest (pp. 73-74). Moreover, as Aufderheide (1999) has also pointed out, the FCC was “given
a crucial and central role” in determining how the public interest could best be served by the
market, rather than regulation, “partly because legislators tended to resolve ambiguity conflicts
among themselves by saying that the FCC would figure out how to make it work” (pp. 61-62).


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 3 of 29   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.