More Media Consolidation Coming Soon

Logic Bomb writes: "According to the Washington Post, a federal appeals court yesterday made a ruling that could make the last couple years of media consolidation look like nothing. Some major FCC rules about media ownership were ruled as "arbitrary" and therefore illegal, most importantly the one preventing a company from owning the cable system and television stations in the same place. Also, though the FCC gets one more chance to defend it, the rule about a company not owning stations reaching more than 35% of the national viewership may get tossed out too."

Pretty soon,

[Tebriel]

Would you like to sign up for AOL/Time-Warner's TV Service? No? Enjoy watching static...

Soon enough, it'll be one company to rule them all...

Seriously...what will prevent monopolies from forming if these laws are stricken?

truely the limits of freedom

[BlackSol]

On the onehand these laws are limiting large companies from competing with each other, these limits tie the hands of large corporations.

On the other hand it definately opens a huge door for monopolistic reign.

We all agree that large corps are evil but we love to pay $29.95 for highspeed internet access, have HDTV yesterday, have 1000 tv channels, etc.

Its society shooting it self in the foot again. Will loosing such competitive laws and strengthening the monopoly laws possible provide a solution? Or are they the same thing and large corps just buying the laws to strengthen their strangle hold on the competition?

Unrestrained monopolies are poison to a republic

[Mr. Mikey]

When one corporation owns all the news outlets, they can decide what you see and hear, and have the money to buy whatever legislation or legal shielding they need. "But, I get my news from the net!" That's great... until they restrict that too. "But, some entrepreneur will start their own news service" Yes, perhaps... until OneCorp buys the right politicians, or puts pressure on your ISP. A nightmare.

Arbitrary?

[Waffle Iron]

Some major FCC rules about media ownership were ruled as "arbitrary"

This is great news. There are thousands of arbitrary laws on the books that must now be repealed. Let's start with this one: in my state, you can't buy beer on Sundays before noon. What's up with that? Why not Tuesdays 2-6 p.m.?

Re:Spectacular

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think that's a false analogy. Imagine if the Roman Empire (and/or any of the other great empires of history -- British, Spanish, Chinese, etc.) had been operating under the authority of an even larger government, a super-empire that was structured for the maintenance of the imperial system. That's the situation with the US government and large corporations. Now, you may argue that this super-empire itself would inevitably fall ... but in the absence of something really drastic happening, I don't expect the US government to go away in my lifetime.

Re:truely the limits of freedom

[zoftie]

Its all in people. Theoretically these companies can be source of unlimited good for the sake of humanity. But since they got there by screwing (with) people for every penny, brainshare, I doubt much will come out of it. Why? Because people are lazy and incompetent. They are subject to external conditions, so are unreliable leaders.

If that large company was to put all the money it gets into researching new forms of communications, entertainment that will enrich this society, albeit they are in business, not reasearch or education sphere. Most money for the length of time is their ultimate goal. Nevermind *ANY* conseqences. Thus all money will be used to extend the stanglehold of revenue streams, instead of creating the and nurturing enviroments where new ones created. It will go only as far as creating a micro managed artist group, that suppose to release frequent reports and justify their existence in terms of money they have brought into the monster.
Ain't gonna happen.

Microsoft is nothing

[SilentChris]

I love people who are constantly arguing against the Microsoft monopoly on Slashdot, as if it were the most important thing in the world. It reminds me of people who fight for the lives of animals but could care less that a war is going on.

THESE mergers are the killers, people. When you own all the media, all the ways to send it, and the people and resources to shape it, you have enormous power. Who cares if one company runs the software under a couple hundred million computers. We're talking BILLIONS of people affected by the media they see, hear, and consume.

just when you thought things couldn't get any wors

[joss]

Western media is overwhelmingly in the hands of a handful of individuals already. Check out this article in pravda [pravda.ru]

Re:Not like it matters these days...

[Keith Mickunas]

Not only was it for protection of different news sources, but it also keeps advertising rates in check. There are some suits going on regarding clear channel. I hate to sound like a clear channel taking over the world alarmist because I've already posted once about them, but they are a problem. I read a while back (sorry I don't have a link handy) that they sometimes sell radio stations to small companies, whose ownership is unclear, when they approach the limit in a particular market. Then they operate that station for the other company. Some of these things are fact, the unclear thing is the ownership of the small company.

The point is, when one media conglomerate controls a significant amount of a single media type (radio, TV, newspaper) in one market, they then control the ad rates in that market. That's a major problem.

TV follows radio into the Abyss of Suck

[termchimp]

the rule about a company not owning stations reaching more than 35% of the national viewership may get tossed out too

This reminds me of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which within a brief span of years turned my favorite radio station (among others in the Denver area [westernstatic.com]) into a sleek, pop spewing, Clear Channel Crap Spigot [ktcl.com]. Yay for mega-conglomoration!

Thank God for college radio. [kcsufm.com]

Re:Microsoft is nothing

[akb]

Actually, Microsoft is becoming a media giant and its looks like it will be able to join the club. Bill Gates and Paul Allen have been investing in cable, telco, etc forever. Microsoft is bankrolling the Comcast / ATT merger, and has a plethora of media interests MSNBC, MSN, ISP for QWEST, ISP for DirecTV (and maybe soon Echostar as well), Xbox, cell phones, set top boxes. They are extraordinarily well positioned for broadband / interactive TV / video on demand services that are about to be rolled out.

Its very clear that Microsoft has its sights set on cornering the new media market. And I agree that this pales to what they have done on the desktop.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't like corporate-controlled gov't policy?

[Jeremi]

... then stop voting for it. The sooner people stop voting for the Demopublican Party, the sooner we can wrest control of our country/airwaves/lives back from corporations.

As for people who argue that voting for a 3rd party is 'throwing your vote away', I submit that not voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away, since it doesn't much matter whether you vote democratic or republican anymore; either way you are just voting for corporate control of government.

As for which 3rd party to vote for, I prefer the Green party (natch) because they don't accept contributions from corporations, but there are probably other good 3rd parties out there as well. Voting for any of them will at least signal your discontent with the status quo, and maybe the demos/repubs will take notice and clean up their act (well.... could happen, anyway)

Re:Another example of Government for by and from B

[GSloop]

That might help, though I think that the REAL death penalty should also apply to the executives and board of directors.

I don't think that the risk to investors is enough to actually result in change. A shell corporation doesn't have much in the way of assets and investment, and any that does occur, can be returned in profits and divs quickly. Then the risk is gone.

Personally, though I used to _like_ the provisions in a corporation that protect the executives from liability for the acts of the corporation, I now wish we could change this.

The CEO, other executives and BOD (Board of Directors) _ARE_ responsible for the actions of the company. That's why they get paid the big bucks. That's why they get fired when things go wrong. And that's why they should be civially and criminally responsible for the acts of the corps that they run.

You hear Ken Lay say - I need a big salary, and stock options because I am responsible for this company, and I am directing it in these profitable times in essence - I am the main man responsible for the "good times" TM.

But, when things go wrong...the story changes. Oh, I'm just the stooge running things - don't ask me, I only work here. I shouldn't be held responsible, they did it behind my back etc.

Sheesh, either you're responsoble, or you're not. If not, then give back all your pay. If you are, then quit whining, and become Bubba's slave in your nearby max-security prison.