[Previous entry: "Yet more WiFi bullshit"] [Next entry: "I am the anti-Atkins"]

04/16/2004: "Overread"

Doc posted something I'd sent him via email:

I e-mailed, I think the FCC is using all this indecency crap to kill broadcast television & radio. I think they want the spectrum back.

And Doc responded (online), I think they're dealing with huge political pressure. Remember that the House voted overwhelmingly, for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. It's insane.

I do think that if the pressure by the FCC continues, it will serve to kneecap broadcast TV. The cable / sat channels can serve up what they damned well please, and the American appetite for salacious "content" is increasing.

Put another way, there is a vast, growing market for exactly the viewing that the FCC/Congress/Ashcroft is attempting to squash, and the existing suppliers (the broadcasters) are going to be constrained to not participate in this (not so) new market. Thus, the buyers will move to markets where they can get what they seek; digital cable, DSS, and the Internet.

Quoth Chairman Powell (link):

In addition, the competitive pressures from other media sources continue to dramatically fragment audiences. Competition continues to grow stronger from cable and satellite, but we are also seeing the use of advanced technology to create many other platforms that folks turn to for entertainment, information and news. The rise of satellite radio, the Internet, video gaming and, of course, TiVo with its ever-so-popular 30-second skip feature all have combined to present sharp threats to traditional broadcasting. Indeed, I am of the view that competitive pressures much more than consolidation are what account for more programming that tests the limits of indecency and violence. As audience continues to fragment and the number of choices multiplies, it is harder and harder to grab and hold a viewer or listener.

[...]

Given the free over the air nature of the medium, consumers do not express any prior consent to receive certain sounds and images—at least not to the extent they do with cable or rented videos, for example.

The First Amendment is cherished, but it bends only for you among media services. The Supreme Court and countless legal decisions create a special exception that allows government to demand more from broadcasting, right or wrongly.

Additionally, free spectrum has always been premised on your industry acting as a public trustee. People feel they have a right to demand higher standards from the industry and have different expectations about what they will see, as compared with the movie theater, a comedy club, HBO, or the Internet.

And then, quoth Chairman Capps (link):
What fueled this mad race to the bottom? I think two things. One is that some chose to push the envelope too far. Particularly in this age of huge media conglomerates, the unforgiving expectations of the marketplace have more influence than they once did in driving media behavior. The other reason—every bit as important—is that the regulatory commission charged with keeping this race from happening abdicated its enforcement responsibilities and thereby created a climate wherein indecency could flourish. If the agency charged with putting the brakes on has no credibility with those who are programming indecency—if it commands no respect on the issue because it runs away from the issue—is it any wonder that the envelope gets pushed farther and farther out?

Its interesting that he blames conglomeration, a process that he not only allowed, but held up as the salvation of on-the-air TV, for the mess. Capps continues:

I hope that as broadcasters—as licensees of the public airwaves—you will also take action. By taking more responsibility for what is broadcast, particularly when children are likely to be watching, you would make a huge contribution to our kids and to our society. From the day I arrived at the Commission, I have been talking about how broadcasters could voluntarily tackle the issues of indecent, profane and violent programming. Many of you remember the old Codes of Broadcaster Conduct. Through enlightened self-regulation, the industry clamped restrictions on the presentations of addiction, even on excessive advertising.

and, interestingly:

Successful resolution of the indecency issues must in the end include cable and satellite. Eighty-five percent of homes get their television signals from cable or satellite. Most viewers, particularly children, don’t recognize the difference as they flip channels between broadcast stations and cable channels. Because cable and satellite are so pervasive, there is a compelling government interest in addressing indecency when children are watching. Indeed, the courts have already applied this to cable. And let’s not forget that cable and DBS make liberal use of the people’s spectrum too and this incurs an obligation to serve the public interest.

Here, Capps simply wants the subscription services to offer a "package" of "safe content". He knows he can't fine or discipline them. He knows nobody will buy it (and it will likely come served on a "premium" platter.)

A twist here is that the FCC is getting increasingly annoyed with the Broadcasters for not moving to the 'new' digital/HDTV spectrum they were *given*. link

Note that the FCC is pushing broadcast radio to be digital as well, and though radio got the favor that they broadcast digitally in-place.

This "drive to digital" isn't about new services, its about control. Its difficult to keep an analog signal from being copied, but a digital receiver can have technology embedded to keep the bits under a DRM scheme.

its about copyright. Basically someone is using the FCC to not only limit the first amendment, but by breaking the 1st, the copyright culture gets stronger in the process.

And yes, the FCC will likely fork-over (sell) the analog TV channels to cell phone carriers.link link

Jim