All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Vertical integration and the must carry rules in the cable television industry: An empirical analysis
Unformatted Document Text:  Must carry rules 25 The Turner II decision, however, in showing its deference to Congress, bought into the government’s findings and economic reasoning too easily. Facing a plausible market foreclosure theory and actual carriage denial behavior in the cable industry, the Supreme Court should have investigated on its own whether the non-carriage instances were random acts or systematic, and whether they were motivated by anticompetitive reasons or efficient ones. The court did not do so. Instead, it merely repeated the evidence presented by the government. In essence, the economic analysis, if any, in the Supreme Court’s principal opinion of Turner II was flawed on two fronts. First, the analysis failed to recognize that cable systems also have incentives to carry local stations on their systems. More importantly, the Court merely speculated on the nature of cable’s non- carriage incidents as anticompetitive, based on an observation of the apparently competitive relationship between the cable industry and the broadcast industry. In conclusion, if the government promulgates the must carry rules in order to preserve local broadcast stations (particularly independent stations) so they can continue to provide local and public affairs programming, then the developments that have taken place in the media marketplace since then speak loudly to the failure of that objective. Not only are truly independent or unaffiliated stations an endangered species nowadays (thanks largely to the must carry rules), the broadcast and cable industries have also become increasingly integrated, with a handful of media companies dominating the video program distribution market. Apparently the government has used an ill informed economic policy to try to achieve a first amendment objective that is not easily attainable in the marketplace.

Authors: Yan, Zhaoxu.
first   previous   Page 27 of 36   next   last



background image
Must carry rules
25
The
Turner II decision, however, in showing its deference to Congress, bought
into the government’s findings and economic reasoning too easily. Facing a plausible
market foreclosure theory and actual carriage denial behavior in the cable industry, the
Supreme Court should have investigated on its own whether the non-carriage instances
were random acts or systematic, and whether they were motivated by anticompetitive
reasons or efficient ones. The court did not do so. Instead, it merely repeated the evidence
presented by the government. In essence, the economic analysis, if any, in the Supreme
Court’s principal opinion of Turner II was flawed on two fronts. First, the analysis failed
to recognize that cable systems also have incentives to carry local stations on their
systems. More importantly, the Court merely speculated on the nature of cable’s non-
carriage incidents as anticompetitive, based on an observation of the apparently
competitive relationship between the cable industry and the broadcast industry.
In conclusion, if the government promulgates the must carry rules in order to
preserve local broadcast stations (particularly independent stations) so they can continue
to provide local and public affairs programming, then the developments that have taken
place in the media marketplace since then speak loudly to the failure of that objective.
Not only are truly independent or unaffiliated stations an endangered species nowadays
(thanks largely to the must carry rules), the broadcast and cable industries have also
become increasingly integrated, with a handful of media companies dominating the video
program distribution market. Apparently the government has used an ill informed
economic policy to try to achieve a first amendment objective that is not easily attainable
in the marketplace.


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
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 27 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.