Time to break the Media Monopoly -FCC to review rules, wants Your input...

[mikelewis]

Heads Up... FCC to review Media Ownership Rules - Wants Input on...
"Comprehensive studies that will address a variety of issues including:
• How people get news and information
• Competition within types of media and across media platforms
• Marketplace changes since the Commission last reviewed its ownership rules
• Localism
• Minority participation in today’s media environment
• Independent and diverse programming in today’s media environment
• The impact of ownership on the production of children’s and family-friendly programming."
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266033A1.pdf


Now is the time to tell the FCC that media consolidation is “hurting America”. I’ve been looking for the promised website that will provide the open forum but it is not up yet and time is ticking. I’m not sure who to contact or where to voice my opinion about this issue but here is the link to the FCC site. Maybe some here know a bit more about this.
FCC Opens Media Ownership Proceeding for Public Comment.
http://www.fcc.gov/

Technology Daily

FCC Begins Media Ownership Review

By Drew Clark

(Wednesday, June 21) The FCC began the contentious process of revisiting media ownership issues -- launching a review of which broadcast ownership rules need to be changed when considering advancing technologies.

The agency must decide if the same company can own a certain number of television and radio stations within a given market, and it also must determine how to treat rules for the combination of broadcast stations and newspapers.

"Today, the commission opens a process to review its media ownership rules, a topic of vital importance to our democracy," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said. "We begin this dialog in a neutral and even-handed fashion."

Martin said the commission plans to hold six public hearings on the topic and has adopted an extended comment period of 120 days.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-QJUM1150972447110.html

Here’s the entire FCC Press Statement:

FCC Opens Media Ownership Proceeding for
Public Comment

Washington, DC – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on how to address the issues raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus v. FCC, which two years ago stayed and remanded several media ownership rules that the Commission had adopted in its 2002 Biennial Review Order. The Further Notice also opens a comprehensive quadrennial review of all of the media ownership rules, as required by statute.

Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as amended, mandates that the FCC periodically review its broadcast ownership rules to determine “whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.” As directed by Congress, the FCC opened a review proceeding in 2002 to analyze its broadcast ownership rules. The Commission’s decision, set forth in the 2002 Biennial Review Order, was adopted in June 2003. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming some Commission decisions and remanding others for further justification or modification.

The Further Notice details the issues raised in Prometheus regarding the Commission’s earlier decisions and rationale. It discusses, and invites comment on, the rules that the court remanded:

 Should the Commission revise the limits adopted in the 2002 Biennial Review Order on the number of stations that can be commonly owned in one market, or is there additional evidence or analysis available now upon which the Commission can rely to further justify the limits adopted then?
 Similarly, in order to address the court’s concerns, should the Commission revise these numerical limits or is additional evidence available to further justify them?
 How should the Commission address radio/television and newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership issues?

The item also seeks comment on the court’s remand of certain proposals relating to minority ownership. In addition, responsive to the quadrennial review required by statute, the Further Notice seeks comment on whether these rules sent back to the Commission by the court, as well as the dual network rule which was not at issue in Prometheus, are necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.

Finally, the Further Notice lists pending petitions for reconsideration of the 2002 Biennial Review Order and states that parties may refresh the record concerning these petitions.

Action by the Commission June 21, 2006, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 06-93). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Tate and McDowell, with Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and dissenting in part. Separate statements issued by Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell.


-- FCC--


Fact Sheet for Media Ownership FNPRM

FNPRM Seeks Comment On the Following Rules:
• Local Television Ownership Limit
• Local Radio Ownership Limit
• Newspaper Broadcast Cross-ownership Ban
• Radio Television Cross-ownership Limit
• Dual Network Ban
• UHF discount on the National Television Ownership Limit


Studies
• Comprehensive studies that will address a variety of issues including:
• How people get news and information
• Competition within types of media and across media platforms
• Marketplace changes since the Commission last reviewed its ownership rules
• Localism
• Minority participation in today’s media environment
• Independent and diverse programming in today’s media environment
• The impact of ownership on the production of children’s and family-friendly programming.
• $200,000 budgeted for these studies


Opportunity for public participation
• Hearings:
• The Commission will hold six public hearings on this ownership proceeding to be held in geographically diverse locations around the country.
• Participants in the hearings will discuss the impact of the rules on topics including but not limited to:
• Localism
• Competition
• Diversity
• Minority ownership
• Children’s and family-friendly programming
• Senior citizens
• Religious programming
• Independent programming
• Campaign and community event coverage
• Music and the creative arts
• The growth of the internet
• Jobs and the economy
• Advertisers
• Rural America
• The disabled community
• The comment cycle will be extended beyond the normal period, to 120 days.


• Facilitating Public Comment
• The main page of the Commission’s website (www.fcc.gov) will be updated to feature a hyperlink to a webpage dedicated to the media ownership proceeding.
• The page will feature details on public hearings, access to the FNPRM and studies, and instructions to facilitate the filing of public comments.

[Divernan]

1. Bush approach: hold bogus hearings and then make outrageous changes.

Pardon my cynicism, but after spending 10 years working for a state legislature, a fair part of which was involved with arranging hearings, it has been my experience that whichever party that is in power (and with the FCC, it is the administration, i.e., Cheney(Bush)) has decided WELL BEFORE ANY PROPOSED HEARINGS exactly what its post-hearing conclusions and recommendations will be!

In this case, the number of stations which can be commonly owned in one market and cross-ownership of media outlets (print, radio, TV) are to be considered, as per court order. The Bush administration will stack the hearings as per the wishes of it's GOP/corporate media donors. I fully expect that not only will the pro-GOP rules and regs be endorsed by the FCC, but they will be broadened to allow further consolidation of ownership.

I have repeatedly seen well-intentioned groups and individuals knock themselves out gathering information and presenting same to legislative bodies on a whole range of topics. They go to great efforts to comply with the rules of addressing a hearing (including providing 30 or more copies of their testimony). These poor suckers are so excited that they have been chosen to speak at a hearing. They see themselves as HONORED to have such an opportunity. In reality, they get their 15 minutes before a microphone/camera on the state TV channel, talking to a bunch of suits who already know what their conclusions will be. The multiple copies are then thrown into the files and NO ONE ever looks at them.

When it comes to outrageous rules and regs of administrative agencies, the only effective solution is LEGISLATION. The same enabling law which establishes an agency can be further amended to REQUIRE
specific rules and regs. Otherwise, the regs can be changed everytime there is a new chief executive, who is beholden to campaign backers. It's a lot easier to weaken regs by administrative order, which is rarely reported on by our inept journalists, than it is to get majority vote of both chambers to do the same thing.