DOCSLIB.ORG

Satellite Television Extension and Localism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Satellite Television Extension and Localism u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t o f f i c e Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act § 302 REPORT a report of the register of copyrights august 29, 2011 u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t o f f i c e Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act § 302 REPORT a report of the register of copyrights august 29, 2011 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress. Copyright Office Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Section 302 Report: a report of the Register of Copyrights, August 2011/U.S. Copyright Office. p. cm. 1. Copyright licenses–United States. 2. Copyright–Broadcasting rights–United States. 3. Direct broadcast satellite television–Law and legislation–United States. 4. Cable Television–Law and legislation–United States. 5. Copyright-Royalties-United States I. Title. Library of Congress temporary Control Number: 2011936460 . STÄT ê e cl The Register of Copyrights of the United States of America ! F I United States Copyright Ofñce . ror Independence Avenue SE . Washington, DC 2o559-6ooo . (zoz) 7o7-835o 7 August 29,2011 Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the United States Copyright Office, I am pleased to deliver this Report to Congress, as required under Section 302 of the "Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010." See Public Law No. III-175, 124 Stat. 1218 (2010). As directed by Congress, the Report considers the repeal of statutory licensing provisions in Sections 111, 119, and 122 of the Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code), which currently govern the retransmission ofdistant and local television broadcast signals by cable operators and satellite carriers. The Report provides recommendations for commencing and carrying out such repeal responsibly and on a reasonable schedule, addressing the following specific points: (1) Possible methods for implementing a phase-out (including allowing stakeholders the opportunity to develop market licenses); and (2) Possible mechanisms for ensuring a timely and effective phase-out (including adopting a date-certain and a tiered schedule); and (3) Possible legislative or administrative actions that may be appropriate in achieving a phase-out (including addressing communications issues that are outside the scope of copyright law). In reaching the recommendations contained in the Report, the Copyright Office engaged with many stakeholders, including copyright owners, members of the broadcast, cable and satellite industries, as well as the Federal Communications Commission, through numerous focused meetings, a public comment period and public hearing. The views of these parties are summarized for your benefit and information. Section 302 requires that I submit this Report no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010. Delivery to you today fulfills my obligations under the law. Respectfully âll¡^ -Å t1"-^ MariaA. Pallante Register of Copyrights Enclosure The Honorable Joseph Biden President United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Àl The Register of Copyrights of the United States of America e United States Copyright Ofûce ' ror Independence Avenue SE . Washington,DC zo559-6ooo . (zoz) 7o7-835o ¡870 August 29,2011 Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the United States Copyright Office, I am pleased to deliver this Report to Congress, as required under Section 302 of the "Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010." See Public Law No. lll-175,124 Stat.1218 (2010). As directed by Congress, the Report considers the repeal of statutory licensing provisions in Sections 111, 119, and 122 of the Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code), which currently govern the retransmission ofdistant and local television broadcast signals by cable operators and satellite carriers. The Report provides recommendations for commencing and carrying out such repeal responsibly and on a reasonable schedule, addressing the following specific points: (1) Possible methods for implementing a phase-out (including allowing stakeholders the opporlunity to develop market licenses); and (2) Possible mechanisms for ensuring a timely and effective phase-out (including adopting a date-certain and a tiered schedule); and (3) Possible legislative or administrative actions thatmay be appropriate in achieving a phase-out (including addressing communications issues that are outside the scope of copyright law). In reaching the recommendations contained in the Report, the Copyright Office engaged with many stakeholders, including copyright owners, members of the broadcast, cable and satellite industries, as well as the Federal Communications Commission, through numerous focused meetings, a public comment period and public hearing. The views of these parties are summarized for your benefit and information. Section 302 requires that I submit this Report no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010. Delivery to you today fulfîlls my obligations under the law. Respectfully A/t/- -ÅÐ'L-^ Maria A. Pallante Register of Copyrights Enclosure The Honorable John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Report was prepared under the auspices of the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, with support from the Office of Policy and International Affairs. It is the result of the sustained commitment and professional expertise of several people in these departments, especially Tanya Sandros, Deputy General Counsel, Ben Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and Erik Bertin, Counsel for Policy and International Affairs. Ben was the principal author of the Report and, thanks to his years of experience at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), was able to provide practical insights into the interplay between copyright and communications law. Tanya was the program manager and assisted me in framing the policy issues and developing the recommendations. Erik greatly assisted the overall effort, from research and writing to coordination with stakeholders. David Carson, Copyright Office General Counsel, provided oversight in reviewing drafts of the Report and discussing policy implications. Michele Woods, Acting Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, also contributed substantive and editorial expertise. Christopher Reed, Senior Advisor to the Register, provided both policy and production direction. Many thanks to legal interns Jenni Wiser and Emily Zandy for their research efforts. I am also grateful to colleagues at the FCC who provided invaluable support and advice on a myriad of issues contained in the Report, especially Eloise Gore, Marcia Glauberman, Dana Scherer, and Jonathan Levy. Copyright Royalty Judge Stanley Wisniewski also contributed valuable insight and information. Finally, I would like to recognize David Christopher and his staff in the Information and Records Division of the Copyright Office, including Helen Hester-Ossa, Teresa McCall and Cecelia Rogers, for their assistance in producing the Report, Terrawn Rogers and Denise Prince for their assistance in formatting it, and Guy Echols for his technical review. And special appreciation goes to the staff of the print shop at the Library of Congress for their professionalism, courtesy and patience. Maria A. Pallante Register of Copyrights TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................ii CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................1 A. Legal Provisions .............................................................................................................................1 B. The Register’s Assignment Under Section 302 Of STELA............................................................3 C. Copyright Office Process ................................................................................................................6 D. Section 302 Considerations.............................................................................................................8 1. Marketplace Options that Could Replace the Statutory Licenses............................................8 2. Practical Issues and Special Policy Concerns........................................................................10 3. Other Considerations in a Phase-Out of the Statutory Licenses ............................................12 4. Recommendations for Achieving a Timely and Effective Phase-Out ...................................14 5. Delaying Repeal of Local Signal Licenses ............................................................................16 CHAPTER II: BROADCAST TELEVISION PROGRAMMING OVERVIEW...................................18 A. The Broadcast Television Structure ............................................................................................18 1. The Commercial Television Market ......................................................................................21 a. Types of commercial broadcast television stations ..........................................................21 b. Types of commercial broadcast television programming.................................................23 2. The Noncommercial Television Market ................................................................................30
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of Hegemonic Social Structures in "Friends"
    "I'LL BE THERE FOR YOU" IF YOU ARE JUST LIKE ME: AN ANALYSIS OF HEGEMONIC SOCIAL STRUCTURES IN "FRIENDS" Lisa Marie Marshall A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2007 Committee: Katherine A. Bradshaw, Advisor Audrey E. Ellenwood Graduate Faculty Representative James C. Foust Lynda Dee Dixon © 2007 Lisa Marshall All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Katherine A. Bradshaw, Advisor The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the dominant ideologies and hegemonic social constructs the television series Friends communicates in regard to friendship practices, gender roles, racial representations, and social class in order to suggest relationships between the series and social patterns in the broader culture. This dissertation describes the importance of studying television content and its relationship to media culture and social influence. The analysis included a quantitative content analysis of friendship maintenance, and a qualitative textual analysis of alternative families, gender, race, and class representations. The analysis found the characters displayed actions of selectivity, only accepting a small group of friends in their social circle based on friendship, gender, race, and social class distinctions as the six characters formed a culture that no one else was allowed to enter. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project stems from countless years of watching and appreciating television. When I was in college, a good friend told me about a series that featured six young people who discussed their lives over countless cups of coffee. Even though the series was in its seventh year at the time, I did not start to watch the show until that season.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Broadcasters' Public Interest Obligations*
    SPECTRUM POLICY PROGRAM POLICY BACKGROUNDER March 29, 2004 The Decline of Broadcasters’ Public Interest Obligations* The Communications Act of 1934 and its predecessor, the interest obligations, but they didn’t necessarily object to Radio Act of 1927, mandates that the Federal their codification because it provided them with more Communications Commission regulate broadcasting in the certainty about the standard by which they would be judged “public interest, convenience, or necessity.” This at renewal time. And, of course, they continued to use continues to be the mandate of the FCC, and the “public prime broadcast frequencies free of charge. interest” part of the phrase appears 40 times in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. What broadcasters really hated, however, was the prospect that they might lose their licenses. Licenses to use the The “public interest” mandate is notoriously vague. airwaves were hugely valuable. In one famous phrase, they Contentious debate over its meaning has been almost were described as a “license to print money.” Thus, continuous since passage of the Communications Act 70 incumbent broadcasters did everything they could to reduce years ago. the threat that at the end of their license term they might lose their license. In other words, they attacked the essence For purposes of this historical account of the public interest of the public interest standard, which was fundamentally mandate, we give it the meaning: “compensation to the procedural rather than substantive in nature. public for the use of the public airwaves.” This interpretation provides a simple framework to explain how Their lobbying was highly successful. Over time, the the public interest mandate has evolved since it was first duration of broadcast licenses was increased from 3 to 5 to embedded as the foundation of broadcast law.
    [Show full text]
  • Replacing Digital Terrestrial Television with Internet Protocol?
    This is a repository copy of The short future of public broadcasting: Replacing digital terrestrial television with internet protocol?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94851/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Ala-Fossi, M and Lax, S orcid.org/0000-0003-3469-1594 (2016) The short future of public broadcasting: Replacing digital terrestrial television with internet protocol? International Communication Gazette, 78 (4). pp. 365-382. ISSN 1748-0485 https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048516632171 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The Short Future of Public Broadcasting: Replacing DTT with IP? Marko Ala-Fossi & Stephen Lax School of Communication, School of Media and Communication Media and Theatre (CMT) University of Leeds 33014 University of Tampere Leeds LS2 9JT Finland UK [email protected] [email protected] Keywords: Public broadcasting, terrestrial television, switch-off, internet protocol, convergence, universal service, data traffic, spectrum scarcity, capacity crunch.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Media – Pubic Broadcasting System (PBS)
    SUPPORTING PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY MEDIA ACTION NEEDED We urge Congress to: Restore public broadcasting funding to the FY 2013 appropriation level of $445 million through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Pass the Community Access Preservation Act (CAP Act) to preserve public, educational, and governmental (PEG) non-commercial cable channels for local communities. OVERVIEW—PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY MEDIA Public media consists of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and more than 1,000 local public broadcasting stations. Community media is comprised of public, educational, and government (PEG) cable access TV and community radio stations. Both public and community media have a long history of presenting local, regional, and national nonprofit arts programming, a great majority of which is not available on commercial channels. These organizations play a unique role in bringing both classics and contemporary works to the American public. All of these systems exist because of federal funding or legislation. TALKING POINTS— CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING In creating America’s unique public broadcasting system, Congress acknowledged public broadcasting’s role in transmitting arts and culture: “It is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes.” And Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is the vehicle through which Congress has chosen to promote noncommercial public telecommunications. CPB does not produce or broadcast programs. The vast majority of funding through CPB goes directly to local public broadcast stations in the form of Community Service Grants. The federal portion of the average public station’s revenue is approximately 10–15 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 103/Thursday, May 28, 2020
    32256 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 103 / Thursday, May 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS closes-headquarters-open-window-and- presentation of data or arguments COMMISSION changes-hand-delivery-policy. already reflected in the presenter’s 7. During the time the Commission’s written comments, memoranda, or other 47 CFR Part 1 building is closed to the general public filings in the proceeding, the presenter [MD Docket Nos. 19–105; MD Docket Nos. and until further notice, if more than may provide citations to such data or 20–105; FCC 20–64; FRS 16780] one docket or rulemaking number arguments in his or her prior comments, appears in the caption of a proceeding, memoranda, or other filings (specifying Assessment and Collection of paper filers need not submit two the relevant page and/or paragraph Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2020. additional copies for each additional numbers where such data or arguments docket or rulemaking number; an can be found) in lieu of summarizing AGENCY: Federal Communications original and one copy are sufficient. them in the memorandum. Documents Commission. For detailed instructions for shown or given to Commission staff ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. submitting comments and additional during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal information on the rulemaking process, must be filed consistent with section Communications Commission see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. In (Commission) seeks comment on several section of this document. proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) proposals that will impact FY 2020 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the Commission’s rules or for which regulatory fees.
    [Show full text]
  • ED358828.Pdf
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 358 828 IR 016 108 AUTHOR Thompsen, Philip A. TITLE Public Broadcasting in the New World of Digital Information Services: What's Been Done, What's Being Done, and What Could Be Done. PUB DATE May 92 NOTE 12p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association (42nd, Miami, FL, May 20-25, 1992). PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120) Speeches/Conference Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Broadcast Television; Educational Television; Electronic Mail; *Information Technology; *Mass Media Role; *Public Television; *Radio; Technological Advancement IDENTIFIERS Closed Captioned Television; *Digital Information Services; *Public Broadcasting ABSTRACT This paper explores the progress public broadcasting (originally called "educational television") has made in taking advantage of a relatively new application of tecnnology: digital information services. How public broadcasters have pursued this technology and how it may become an integral part of the future of public broadcasting are reviewed. Three of the more successful digital information services that have been provided by public broadcasters (i.e., closed captioning, electronic bulletin board services, and electronic text) are discussed. The paper then discusses three areas that are currently being pursued: digital radio broadcasting, interactive video data services, and the broadcasting of data over the vertical blanking interval (VBI) of public television stations. A vision for the future of public broadcasting is considered, identifying some of the important opportunities that should be taken advantage of before the rapidly changing technological environment eclipses public broadcasting's chance to define a better future for an electronic society. (Contains 39 references.) (RS) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • Stability and Possible Change in the Japanese Broadcast Market: a Comparative Institutional Analysis
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Nishioka, Yoko Conference Paper Stability and Possible Change in the Japanese Broadcast Market: A Comparative Institutional Analysis 14th Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): "Mapping ICT into Transformation for the Next Information Society", Kyoto, Japan, 24th-27th June, 2017 Provided in Cooperation with: International Telecommunications Society (ITS) Suggested Citation: Nishioka, Yoko (2017) : Stability and Possible Change in the Japanese Broadcast Market: A Comparative Institutional Analysis, 14th Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): "Mapping ICT into Transformation for the Next Information Society", Kyoto, Japan, 24th-27th June, 2017, International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Calgary This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/168526 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
    [Show full text]
  • Television and Sound Broadcasting Regulations, 1996
    BROADFASTING AND RADIO Ri-DIFFIlSfON THE BROADCASTING AND RADIO RE-DIFFUSION ACT &GULATIONs (under section 23 ( f 1) THETELEVISION AND SOUNDBRO~ASTMG REGULATIONS, 1996 (Made by the Broadcasrinl: Commi.~.~ionon ihe 14th day LF:WIT ~IM 0f Miq: 1'996) LN 25iW 91,W Preliminary 1. These Regulations may be cited as the Television and Sound Broad- cn~non casting Regulations, 1996. 2. In these Regulations- rnl- "adult programmes" means programmes which depict or display sexual organs or conduct in ar! explicit and offensive manner; "authorized person" means a person authorized by the Commission to perform duties pursuant to these Regulations; "'broadcasting station" means any premises from which broadcast programmes originate; "licensee" means a person who is licensed under the Act; "zone" means a zone established pursuant to regulation 27. Licences 3.-+ 1) Evqpem who is desirous of- m~ktiar or t~cnne (a) engaging in commercial broadcasting, non-commercial broad- carting or offering subscriber television senice shall make an application to the Commission on zhe appropriate application Flm fam set out in the First Schedule; Mdda THE TELEVISlON AND SOl/ND BROADCAflI~3'G REGC;IlL/1TlO,VS, 1996 (b) establishing, maintaining or operating a radio redifision system shall make application to the Commission in such form as the Commission may determine. (2) Every application shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee af one hundred and ten thousand dollars. (3) The Commission may, on receipt of an application, require the applicant to furnish the Commission
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcast License Renewal and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 1996 Not With a Bang But a Whimper: Broadcast License Renewal and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Communications Law Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, Not With a Bang But a Whimper: Broadcast License Renewal and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 29 Conn. L. Rev. 243 (1996). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Not With a Bang But a Whimper: Broadcast License Renewal and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Liu LEvi In 1969, public outrage derailed a bill providing that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") could not con- sider competing applications for broadcast licenses unless it first found that renewal of the incumbent's license would not be in the public interest.' Citizen groups claimed that eliminating comparative challenges to incumbent broadcasters was "back-door racism" and reinforced the under-representation of minorities in broadcasting.2 They decried the bill as a "vicious ... attempt to limit the efforts of the black community to challenge the prevailing racist practices of the vast majority of TV stations."3 When the FCC thereupon issued a policy statement adopting a similar reform of the comparative renewal process, it was reversed by * Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • ECC Report 188
    ECC Report 188 Future Harmonised Use of 1452-1492 MHz in CEPT approved February 2013 ECC REPORT 188 - Page 2 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 1452-1492 MHz band has remained unused in most European countries for the past decade. Since 2002, the 1452-1479.5 MHz sub-band has been harmonised for Terrestrial Digital Audio Broadcasting systems (T-DAB) through the Maastricht, 2002 Special Arrangement. The arrangement was later revised in Constanţa, in 2007 [1]. Since 2003, the 1479.5-1492 MHz sub-band has been harmonised for Satellite Digital Audio Broadcasting (S-DAB) through the ECC/ DEC/(03)02 [2]. The 1452-1492 MHz is indifferently referenced to, in Europe, as the L-band, 1.4 GHz or 1.5 GHz. Late 2010, CEPT decided to undertake a review of the use of the L-band with the aim to change the current situation and enable the use of those 40 MHz of prime spectrum for new services and applications that could bring substantial social and economic benefits for Europe. In December 2010, the ECC launched a questionnaire to CEPT administrations and industry in order to identify the current and potential candidate applications. In May 2011, the ECC established a Project Team to determine, based on an impact analysis, the most appropriate future use(s) of the 1452-1492 MHz band in CEPT. In order to conduct the impact analysis, a number of criteria have been defined, namely 1) compatibility with the current regulatory framework, 2) possibility to share with other applications/uses, 3) extent (maximisation) of social and economic benefits, 4) timeframe for availability of equipment on a large scale and for application deployment - status of standardisation and 5) Potential for economy of scale (need and potential for harmonisation within and outside CEPT).
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcast Television (1945, 1952) ………………………
    Transformative Choices: A Review of 70 Years of FCC Decisions Sherille Ismail FCC Staff Working Paper 1 Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 October, 2010 FCC Staff Working Papers are intended to stimulate discussion and critical comment within the FCC, as well as outside the agency, on issues that may affect communications policy. The analyses and conclusions set forth are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the FCC, other Commission staff members, or any Commissioner. Given the preliminary character of some titles, it is advisable to check with the authors before quoting or referencing these working papers in other publications. Recent titles are listed at the end of this paper and all titles are available on the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/papers/. Abstract This paper presents a historical review of a series of pivotal FCC decisions that helped shape today’s communications landscape. These decisions generally involve the appearance of a new technology, communications device, or service. In many cases, they involve spectrum allocation or usage. Policymakers no doubt will draw their own conclusions, and may even disagree, about the lessons to be learned from studying the past decisions. From an academic perspective, however, a review of these decisions offers an opportunity to examine a commonly-asserted view that U.S. regulatory policies — particularly in aviation, trucking, and telecommunications — underwent a major change in the 1970s, from protecting incumbents to promoting competition. The paper therefore examines whether that general view is reflected in FCC policies. It finds that there have been several successful efforts by the FCC, before and after the 1970s, to promote new entrants, especially in the markets for commercial radio, cable television, telephone equipment, and direct broadcast satellites.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Historical Understandings of the “Public Interest” Standard of American Broadcasting: an Exploration of the Fairness Doctrine
    International Journal of Communication 7 (2013), 89–109 1932–8036/20130005 Restoring Historical Understandings of the “Public Interest” Standard of American Broadcasting: An Exploration of the Fairness Doctrine CHRISTINA LEFEVRE–GONZALEZ University of Colorado, Boulder The “public interest” standard is a phrase that American broadcast regulation has not clearly defined throughout its history. Media scholars have attempted to locate the “true” meaning of the public interest standard by historicizing its use through broad analyses of broadcast regulation, but this approach has provided inadequate frameworks for understanding how the public interest standard has informed broadcast policy. By centering its historical analysis on the Fairness Doctrine, this article uncovers four dominant definitions for the public interest standard: first, as an enforcer of structure and efficiency of the spectrum; second, as part of the trusteeship of licensed broadcasters; third, for social justice and reform; and fourth, for the tastes and preferences of the public. The “public interest” is a phrase that, in the words of Richard Weaver (1953), possesses a “charismatic” quality. Political scientist Frank Sorauf (1957) described the concept as reflecting “the highest standard of governmental action, the measure of the greatest wisdom or morality in government” (p. 616). Some scholars believe that this idyllic phrase, an important rhetorical feature of American broadcast policy, possesses an indiscernible meaning that is susceptible to political will. Legal scholars Krattenmaker and Powe (1994) describe the standard as “either an empty concept or one that is infinitely manipulable” (p. 143). Zlotlow (2004) argues that the poorly defined standard “was both an empty concept and infinitely manipulable” (p.
    [Show full text]