DOCSLIB.ORG

Disclosure, Deception, and Deep-Packet Inspection: the Role of the Federal Trade Commission Act's Deceptive Conduct Prohibitions in the Net Neutrality Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Disclosure, Deception, and Deep-Packet Inspection: the Role of the Federal Trade Commission Act's Deceptive Conduct Prohibitions in the Net Neutrality Debate Fordham Law Review Volume 78 Issue 2 Article 9 2009 Disclosure, Deception, and Deep-Packet Inspection: The Role of the Federal Trade Commission Act's Deceptive Conduct Prohibitions in the Net Neutrality Debate Catherine J. K. Sandoval Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine J. K. Sandoval, Disclosure, Deception, and Deep-Packet Inspection: The Role of the Federal Trade Commission Act's Deceptive Conduct Prohibitions in the Net Neutrality Debate, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 641 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol78/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Disclosure, Deception, and Deep-Packet Inspection: The Role of the Federal Trade Commission Act's Deceptive Conduct Prohibitions in the Net Neutrality Debate Cover Page Footnote Thanks to the participants in the Oxford Round Table, Oxford University, particularly Amy Kristin Sanders and T. Barton Carter for their comments about this Article. I appreciate the support of the Santa Clara University School of Law Scholarly Research Grant. Special thanks to Al Hammond, Don Polden, Eric Goldman, Rob Frieden, Phil Weiser, Kevin Werbach, Anthony Varona, Leonard Baynes, Marvin Ammori, James Speta, and Angela Campbell for their comments ont his work. Thanks to the paricipants in the Social Sciences Research Council Academic Conference held in conjunction with the National Media Reform Conference and the participants at conferences and workshops at the American Univerisity School of Law, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, St. John's Law School and the santa Clara University School of Law, where I presented portions of this Ariticle. I am grateful for the excellent research assistance of SCU Law students Eli Edwards, IvyLiu Manley, Krista Jacobsen, Asa Pitman, Michelle Schaefer, Oscar Warren Hunter, Bruce Shem, Jason Chang, Carrie Wooley, and Ravi Mohan. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol78/iss2/9 ARTICLES DISCLOSURE, DECEPTION, AND DEEP-PACKET INSPECTION: THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT'S DECEPTIVE CONDUCT PROHIBITIONS IN THE NET NEUTRALITY DEBATE Catherine . K. Sandoval* This Article examines a largely unexplored frontier in the "Net Neutrality" debate: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act's proscriptionsagainst deceptive conduct as a legal limit on Internet Service Provider (ISP) discrimination against Internet traffic. ISP discrimination against certain types of Internet traffic has blossomed since 2005 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with the Supreme Court's blessing in NCTA v. Brand X and FCC, relieved ISPsfrom common-carrier regulations that prohibited discrimination and reclassified ISPs as "information service providers." This Article argues that the Internet's architecture and codes presumed common carriage, indicating that the Internet's design and industry "self-regulation" cannot alone prevent ISPs who control access to the Internet's physical layer from becoming its gatekeepers. The FTC and FCC must use their respective authority to police the gulf between ISP promises and practices,protect Internet users and competition, and safeguard the Internet itself as a source for innovation and a wide range of speech. * Assistant Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law (SCU Law). Co- Director, Broadband Institute of California. Thanks to the participants in the Oxford Round Table, Oxford University, particularly Amy Kristin Sanders and T. Barton Carter for their comments about this Article. I appreciate the support of the Santa Clara University School of Law Scholarly Research Grant. Special thanks to Al Hammond, Don Polden, Eric Goldman, Rob Frieden, Phil Weiser, Kevin Werbach, Anthony Varona, Leonard Baynes, Marvin Ammori, James Speta, and Angela Campbell for their comments on this work. Thanks to the participants in the Social Sciences Research Council Academic Conference held in conjunction with the National Media Reform Conference, and the participants at conferences and workshops at the American University School of Law, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, St. John's Law School, and the Santa Clara University School of Law, where I presented portions of this Article. I am grateful for the excellent research assistance of SCU Law students Eli Edwards, Ivy Liu Manley, Krista Jacobsen, Asa Pitman, Michelle Schaefer, Oscar Warren Hunter, Bruce Shem, Jason Chang, Carrie Wooley, and Ravi Mohan. FORDHAMLA WREVIEW [Vol. 78 In August 2008 the FCC condemned cable-based ISP Comcast's actions that interfered with subscriber use of peer-to-peer Internet protocols to legally sharefiles and access Internet content, practices that contradicted Comcast's offer of unfettered Internet access. While that order is being appealed and the FCC considers formal adoption of net neutrality principles,this Article examines Comcast's actions in light of the FTCAct's deceptive practices standards. It also analyzes the market promises and terms of service of other cable, wireline, wireless, and satellite-basedISPs to examine industry practices that limit consumer choice and competition. To protect Internet users and the Internet itself as a platform for competition and new voices, the FCC should determine whether those practices violate the Communications Act. This Article also recommends that the FTC declare that ISP advertisements of unlimited data or Internet access violate the FTC Act's deceptive conduct provisions when the ISP's material limits on Internet use are not prominently highlighted in the ISP's enticements to subscribers. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT PROSCRIPTIONS OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AS A RESTRAINT ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER CONTROL OF INTERNET ACCESS .................................................... 643 II. FROM COMMON CARRIAGE TO INFORMATION SERVICE PROVIDERS: THE FOUNDATION FOR NETWORK NON- NEUTRALITY AND FTC JURISDICTION OVER INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ..................................................... 652 III. THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR AN FTC ACT DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CLAIM EXAMINING INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER PROMISES AND NETWORK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................... 661 A. FTC Act Deceptive PracticesClaim: False Material R ep resentation ........................................................................ 664 B. FTC Act Deceptive Practices Claim: RepresentationMust Mislead Consumers Acting Reasonably Under the Circum stances ......................................................................... 665 C. Defenses to an FTC Act Deceptive Practices Claim: Disclaimers,Disclosure, and Reasonable Consum er A ction ..................................................................... 666 1. Disclosure: Were Comcast's Disclosures Sufficient to Alert Users to the Material Limits on Internet Service? .............................. .. .. .. .. .. .. 666 2. Were Comcast's Actions Deceptive in Light of Its Promised Services and Limited Disclosures? ......... .. .. 673 D. FTC Act Deceptive Practices Claim: Alleged Benefits of Conduct Not a Defense ........................................................... 684 2009] FTC AND NET NEUTRALITY E. FTC Act Deceptive PracticesClaim.- PrivateAgreements with Application Providers and Changes in the Congestion Management System Do Not Resolve the FTC Act Issues ......685 IV. CAN BETTER ISP DISCLOSURE SUFFICIENTLY PROTECT INTERNET CONSUMERS AND COMPETITION IN LIEU OF FTC AND FCC ENFORCEM EN T? .............................................................................693 V. QUALIFIED REFUSALS TO DEAL, UNFAIR COMPETITION, ANTITRUST AND FTC ACT DECEPTIVE CONDUCT STANDARDS ....701 VI. FTC ACT DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CLAIM: PROPOSAL FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EQUITABLE REMEDIES To REDRESS DECEPTIVE ISP NETWORK MANAGEMENT C O N D U CT ................................................................................706 V II. C ON CLU SION .....................................................................................710 I. INTRODUCTION: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT PROSCRIPTIONS OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AS A RESTRAINT ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER CONTROL OF INTERNET ACCESS "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said. "itmeans just what I 1 choose it to mean-neither more nor less." Where does unfettered mean restricted and unlimited mean limited? Not in Wonderland but in the Internet domain, according to several Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon promised subscribers "unfettered" or "unlimited" Internet access. 2 Yet, those same ISPs restricted Internet access through vague contractual prohibitions and fine print separated from broad promises of Internet access. 3 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found in 2008 1. LEWIS CARROLL, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS 106 (Schocken Books 1987) (1872). 2. See INTERNET BUREAU, ATT'Y GEN. OF THE STATE OF N.Y., IN THE MATTER OF VERIZON WIRELESS: ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE (2007) [hereinafter VERIZON ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE], available at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/ media center/2007/oct/Verizon%2OWireless%20AOD.pdf (requiring that Verizon cease advertisements describing its Data Access Plan as "unlimited"
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Media Ownership Rules
    05-Sadler.qxd 2/3/2005 12:47 PM Page 101 5 MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES It is the purpose of this Act, among other things, to maintain control of the United States over all the channels of interstate and foreign radio transmission, and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal author- ity, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license. —Section 301, Communications Act of 1934 he Communications Act of 1934 reestablished the point that the public airwaves were “scarce.” They were considered a limited and precious resource and T therefore would be subject to government rules and regulations. As the Supreme Court would state in 1943,“The radio spectrum simply is not large enough to accommodate everybody. There is a fixed natural limitation upon the number of stations that can operate without interfering with one another.”1 In reality, the airwaves are infinite, but the govern- ment has made a limited number of positions available for use. In the 1930s, the broadcast industry grew steadily, and the FCC had to grapple with the issue of broadcast station ownership. The FCC felt that a diversity of viewpoints on the airwaves served the public interest and was best achieved through diversity in station ownership. Therefore, to prevent individuals or companies from controlling too many broadcast stations in one area or across the country, the FCC eventually instituted ownership rules. These rules limit how many broadcast stations a person can own in a single market or nationwide.
    [Show full text]
  • He KMBC-ÍM Radio TEAM
    l\NUARY 3, 1955 35c PER COPY stu. esen 3o.loe -qv TTaMxg4i431 BItOADi S SSaeb: iiSZ£ (009'I0) 01 Ff : t?t /?I 9b£S IIJUY.a¡:, SUUl.; l: Ii-i od 301 :1 uoTloas steTaa Rae.zgtZ IS-SN AlTs.aantur: aTe AVSí1 T E IdEC. 211111 111111ip. he KMBC-ÍM Radio TEAM IN THIS ISSUE: St `7i ,ytLICOTNE OSE YN in the 'Mont Network Plans AICNISON ` MAISHAIS N CITY ive -Film Innovation .TOrEKA KANSAS Heart of Americ ENE. SEDALIA. Page 27 S CLINEON WARSAW EMROEIA RUTILE KMBC of Kansas City serves 83 coun- 'eer -Wine Air Time ties in western Missouri and eastern. Kansas. Four counties (Jackson and surveyed by NARTB Clay In Missouri, Johnson and Wyan- dotte in Kansas) comprise the greater Kansas City metropolitan trading Page 28 Half- millivolt area, ranked 15th nationally in retail sales. A bonus to KMBC, KFRM, serv- daytime ing the state of Kansas, puts your selling message into the high -income contours homes of Kansas, sixth richest agri- Jdio's Impact Cited cultural state. New Presentation Whether you judge radio effectiveness by coverage pattern, Page 30 audience rating or actual cash register results, you'll find that FREE & the Team leads the parade in every category. PETERS, ñtvC. Two Major Probes \Exclusive National It pays to go first -class when you go into the great Heart of Face New Senate Representatives America market. Get with the KMBC -KFRM Radio Team Page 44 and get real pulling power! See your Free & Peters Colonel for choice availabilities. st SATURE SECTION The KMBC - KFRM Radio TEAM -1 in the ;Begins on Page 35 of KANSAS fir the STATE CITY of KANSAS Heart of America Basic CBS Radio DON DAVIS Vice President JOHN SCHILLING Vice President and General Manager GEORGE HIGGINS Year Vice President and Sally Manager EWSWEEKLY Ir and for tels s )F RADIO AND TV KMBC -TV, the BIG TOP TV JIj,i, Station in the Heart of America sú,\.rw.
    [Show full text]
  • Nexstar Media Group Stations(1)
    Nexstar Media Group Stations(1) Full Full Full Market Power Primary Market Power Primary Market Power Primary Rank Market Stations Affiliation Rank Market Stations Affiliation Rank Market Stations Affiliation 2 Los Angeles, CA KTLA The CW 57 Mobile, AL WKRG CBS 111 Springfield, MA WWLP NBC 3 Chicago, IL WGN Independent WFNA The CW 112 Lansing, MI WLAJ ABC 4 Philadelphia, PA WPHL MNTV 59 Albany, NY WTEN ABC WLNS CBS 5 Dallas, TX KDAF The CW WXXA FOX 113 Sioux Falls, SD KELO CBS 6 San Francisco, CA KRON MNTV 60 Wilkes Barre, PA WBRE NBC KDLO CBS 7 DC/Hagerstown, WDVM(2) Independent WYOU CBS KPLO CBS MD WDCW The CW 61 Knoxville, TN WATE ABC 114 Tyler-Longview, TX KETK NBC 8 Houston, TX KIAH The CW 62 Little Rock, AR KARK NBC KFXK FOX 12 Tampa, FL WFLA NBC KARZ MNTV 115 Youngstown, OH WYTV ABC WTTA MNTV KLRT FOX WKBN CBS 13 Seattle, WA KCPQ(3) FOX KASN The CW 120 Peoria, IL WMBD CBS KZJO MNTV 63 Dayton, OH WDTN NBC WYZZ FOX 17 Denver, CO KDVR FOX WBDT The CW 123 Lafayette, LA KLFY CBS KWGN The CW 66 Honolulu, HI KHON FOX 125 Bakersfield, CA KGET NBC KFCT FOX KHAW FOX 129 La Crosse, WI WLAX FOX 19 Cleveland, OH WJW FOX KAII FOX WEUX FOX 20 Sacramento, CA KTXL FOX KGMD MNTV 130 Columbus, GA WRBL CBS 22 Portland, OR KOIN CBS KGMV MNTV 132 Amarillo, TX KAMR NBC KRCW The CW KHII MNTV KCIT FOX 23 St. Louis, MO KPLR The CW 67 Green Bay, WI WFRV CBS 138 Rockford, IL WQRF FOX KTVI FOX 68 Des Moines, IA WHO NBC WTVO ABC 25 Indianapolis, IN WTTV CBS 69 Roanoke, VA WFXR FOX 140 Monroe, AR KARD FOX WTTK CBS WWCW The CW WXIN FOX KTVE NBC 72 Wichita, KS
    [Show full text]
  • Growth and Dynamics of Maturing New Media Companies Growth and Dynamics of Maturing New Media Companies Growth and Dynamics Of
    CINZIA DAL ZOTTO CINZIA DAL CINZIA DAL ZOTTO (ed.) CINZIA DAL ZOTTO (ed.) (ed.) Growth and Dynamics of Maturing New Media Companies Media Companies and Dynamics of Maturing New Growth Growth and Dynamics of Companies that were called “new media” fi rms a decade ago are now maturing and playing increasingly competitive roles in the media landscape and compre- Maturing New Media hension of the uses and opportunities presented by these technologies have evol- ved along with the fi rms. The changes resulting from the introduction of the technologies, and their uses by media and communication enterprises, today Companies present a host of realistic opportunities to both established and emergent fi rms. This book explores developments in the new media fi rms, their effects on traditional media fi rms, and emerging issues involving these media. It addresses Media Management and Transformation Centre issues of changes in the media environment, markets, products, and business practices and how media fi rms have adapted to those changes as the new techno- Jönköping International Business School logy fi rms have matured and their products have gained consumer acceptance. It explores organizational change in maturing new media companies, challenges of growth in these adolescent fi rms, changing leadership and managerial needs in growing and maturing fi rms, and internationalization of small and medium new media fi rms. The chapters in this volume reveal how they are now creating niches within media and communication activities that are providing them com- petitive spaces in which to further develop and succeed. The book is based on papers and discussions at the workshop, “The ‘New Economy’ Comes of Age: Growth and Dynamics of Maturing New Media Com- panies” sponsored by the Media Management and Transformation Centre of Jönköping International Business School, 12-13 November 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules Updated October 9, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45338 SUMMARY R45338 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) October 9, 2018 Media Ownership Rules Dana A. Scherer The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) aims, with its broadcast media ownership Specialist in rules, to promote localism and competition by restricting the number of media outlets that a Telecommunications single entity may own or control within a geographic market and, in the case of broadcast Policy television stations, nationwide. In addition, the FCC seeks to encourage diversity, including (1) the diversity of viewpoints, as reflected in the availability of media content reflecting a variety of perspectives; (2) diversity of programming, as indicated by a variety of formats and content; (3) outlet diversity, to ensure the presence of multiple independently owned media outlets within a geographic market; and (4) minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets. Two FCC media ownership rules have proven particularly controversial. Its national media ownership rule prohibits any entity from owning commercial television stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households nationwide. Its “UHF discount” rule discounts by half the reach of a station broadcasting in the Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) band for the purpose of applying the national media ownership rule. In December 2017, the commission opened a rulemaking proceeding, seeking comments about whether it should modify or repeal the two rules. If the FCC retains the UHF discount, even if it maintains the 39% cap, a single entity could potentially reach 78% of U.S. households through its ownership of broadcast television stations.
    [Show full text]
  • CMCRP : the Growth of the Network Media Economy in Canada
    THE GROWTH OF THE NETWORK MEDIA ECONOMY IN CANADA, 1984-2017 REPORT NOVEMBER 2018 (UPDATED JANUARY 2019) Canadian Media Concentration Research Project Research Canadian Media Concentration www.cmcrp.org 2 Candian Media Concentration Research Project The Canadian Media Concentration Research project is directed by Professor Dwayne Winseck, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University. The project is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and aims to develop a comprehensive, systematic and long-term analysis of the media, internet and telecom industries in Canada to better inform public and policy-related discussions about these issues. Professor Winseck can be reached at either [email protected] or 613 769- 7587 (mobile). Open Access to CMCR Project Data CMCR Project data can be freely downloaded and used under Creative Commons licens- ing arrangements for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution and in accor- dance with the ShareAlike principles set out in the International License 4.0. Explicit, written permission is required for any other use that does not follow these principles. Our data sets are available for download here. They are also available through the Dat- averse, a publicly-accessible repository of scholarly works created and maintained by a consortium of Canadian universities. All works and datasets deposited in Dataverse are given a permanent DOI, so as to not be lost when a website becomes no longer avail- able—a form of “dead media”. Acknowledgements Special thanks to Ben Klass, a Ph.D. student at the School of Journalism and Communi- cation, Carleton University, Lianrui Jia, a Ph.D student in the York Ryerson Joint Gradu- ate Program in Communication and Culture and Han Xiaofei, also in the Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Impact of the FCC's TV Duopoly Rule Relaxation on Minority And
    The Impact of the FCC’s TV Duopoly Rule Relaxation on Minority and Women Owned Broadcast Stations 1999-2006 By: Prof. Allen S. Hammond, IV, Santa Clara University School of Law, Founding Director, BroadBand Institute of California (BBIC) With: Prof. Barbara O’Connor, California State University, Sacramento And Prof. Tracy Westin, University of Colorado Consultants: Prof. Alexander Field, Santa Clara University And Assoc. Prof. Catherine Sandoval, Santa Clara University School of Law, Co-Director, BBIC 1 The Impact of the FCC’s TV Duopoly Rule Relaxation on Minority and Women Owned Broadcast Stations 1999-20061 Executive Summary This study was commissioned to ascertain the impact of the Television Duopoly Rule (TVDR) on minority and female ownership of television broadcast stations. Currently, the only FCC rule deemed to be favorable to minority and female broadcast ownership is the Failed Station Solicitation Rule (FSSR) of the TVDR. The TVDR originally prohibited the ownership of more than one television broadcast station in a market. In 1996, due to industry efforts to protect market gains realized through the use of local management agreements (LMAs)2, the TVDR was amended to allow the ownership of two stations in certain markets provided only one of the two was a VHF station and the overlapping signals of the two owned stations originated from separate albeit contiguous markets. In addition, the acquired station was required to be economically “failing” or “failed” or unbuilt. In an effort to afford market access to potential minority and female owners, the FCC required the owners of the station to be acquired to provide public notice of its availability for acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Services. 42 Time Warner Attempts to Distinguish This Case on the Grounds That the Rule Was Intended to Protect a New Service at the Beginning Stages Ofdevelopment
    services. 42 Time Warner attempts to distinguish this case on the grounds that the rule was intended to protect a new service at the beginning stages ofdevelopment. 43 This is precisely the case with new DTV stations. The FCC and Congress have a vested interest in protecting the roll out ofthe new digital television service. Absent carriage and channel positioning protection for the new DTV service, retention ofthe cable/television cross-ownership rule is reasonable. Second, there is little or no guarantee that the present must-carry rules will exist in perpetuity. The cable industry spent millions ofdollars challenging the rules in court and always may seek some form oflegislative change in the future. Ifthe cable/television cross-ownership rule is eliminated and must-carry protections are subsequently relaxed, no protection would remain for local stations. Yet, we doubt the government would move to force the divestiture of television/cable combinations ifmust-carry rules were eliminated at some time in the future. Apart from must-carry concerns, the FCC should recognize the unique relationship cable has with local television stations. The 1992 Cable Act gave local television stations the right to opt for either must-carry or retransmission consent. A commonly owned broadcast/cable combination in a local market could dramatically distort the competitive relationships in these markets.44 For example, such a system could give its owned station more favorable terms for 42Comments ofTime Warner Cable at 25 citing Melcher v. FCC, 134 F.3d 1143 (D.C. Cir 1998). 43Id. at 25. 44See Comments ofNetwork Affiliated Station Alliance (NASA) at 18.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC's Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership
    The FCC’s Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Diversity Dana A. Scherer Specialist in Telecommunications Policy December 16, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43936 The FCC's Broadcast Media Ownership Rules, Attribution Rules, and Diversity Policies Summary From the earliest days of commercial radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, have encouraged diversity in broadcasting. This concern has repeatedly been supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has affirmed that “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public,” and that “assuring that the public has access to a multiplicity of information sources is a governmental purpose of the highest order, for it promotes values central to the First Amendment.” The FCC’s policies seek to encourage four distinct types of diversity: (1) diversity of viewpoints, as reflected in the availability of media content reflecting a variety of perspectives; (2) diversity of programming, as indicated by a variety of formats and content; (3) outlet diversity, to ensure the presence of multiple independently owned media outlets within a geographic market; and (4) minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets. In addition to promoting diversity, the FCC aims, with its broadcast media ownership rules, to promote localism and competition by restricting the number of media outlets that a single entity may own or control within a local geographic market. Two characteristics of broadcast television and broadcast radio stations determine whether or not media ownership rules are triggered: (1) the geographic range of their signals, and (2) the boundaries of their media markets as determined by the Nielsen Company, a market research firm.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 81 Monday, No. 118 June 20, 2016 Pages 39867–40148
    Vol. 81 Monday, No. 118 June 20, 2016 Pages 39867–40148 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:12 Jun 17, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\20JNWS.LOC 20JNWS mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with FED-WS II Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 118 / Monday, June 20, 2016 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Mergers 2003
    Media Mergers 2003 The OECD Competition Committee debated media mergers in May 2003. This document includes an executive summary and the documents from the meeting: an analytical note by Mr. Gary Hewitt for the OECD, written submissions from Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Spain, Chinese Taipei, the United Kingdom, the United States, as well as an aide-memoire of the discussion. Reviewing media mergers may be more complicated than reviewing other mergers because of the huge variety of possible media content and the two-sided market aspect of many media, i.e. those earning advertising revenue. A wide variety of content means that market definition is rendered more complex. The two-sided market characteristic has important and sometimes far from obvious impacts on how mergers affect economic efficiency, media plurality and content diversity. Vertical integration can produce real efficiencies in media markets notably when it eliminates a double-marginalisation problem but it can sometimes create competition problems as far as access to content and final delivery to the consumer are concerned. Adequate trade off between economic welfare and non-economic effects on social welfare, e.g. on pluralism, which are two separate goals, are difficult to make in reviewing media mergers. Although competition authorities tend to protect pluralism, most often they are reluctant to include pluralism considerations in merger reviews as they want to preserve
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC's Broadcast Media Ownership And
    . The FCC’s Broadcast Media Ownership and Attribution Rules: The Current Debate Charles B. Goldfarb Specialist in Telecommunications Policy March 29, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42436 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c11173008 . The FCC’s Broadcast Media Ownership and Attribution Rules: The Current Debate Summary The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) broadcast media ownership rules, which place restrictions on the number of media outlets that a single entity can own or control in a local market or nationally, are intended to foster the three long-standing goals of U.S. media policy— competition, localism, and diversity of voices. The FCC is statutorily required to review these rules every four years to determine whether they continue to serve the public interest or should be modified or eliminated. One part of these rules, the FCC’s attribution rules, identify criteria for determining when an entity holds sufficient ownership or control of a broadcast station that such ownership or control should be attributed to the entity for the purposes of applying the media ownership rules. The FCC proposes eliminating its Radio/Television Cross-Ownership rule because it is no longer needed to foster the goals of diversity of voices and localism. It also proposes modifying its Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership rule to allow certain types of combinations in the 20 largest markets. It proposes a technical change in its Local Television Ownership Rule, but otherwise would continue to prohibit ownership of two stations in a local market unless one is not among the four highest-ranked stations in the market and, after the combination, there would still be eight independently owned and operating commercial full-power television stations.
    [Show full text]