FCC Orders Anti-Monopoly Report Destroyed 273
jagger writes "According to an article on MSNBC a report, written by two economists in the FCC's Media Bureau, showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of 'on-location' news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. Senior managers at the agency ordered that 'every last piece' of the report be destroyed."
And? (Score:3, Insightful)
Memory hole (Score:5, Insightful)
What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
For the people... how quaint. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this report was ordered to be destroyed only goes to show that someone's best interests other than the public's are being defended here. How far will this sort of thing go? How much are people going to take before they push back, or are we pretty much screwed to slide down this slope to a place where we have no voice and no control? I sure hope not.
Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot isn't "Surprises for Nerds". But living down to abyssmal expectations when handling telecomm policy is important news. Especially when the Republican Congress is facing losing reelection in only 7 weeks, on November 7, 2006. It's your chance to surprise them for a change.
Re:The FCC was right to do so (Score:3, Insightful)
.
Re:FOIA (Score:5, Insightful)
* managing the spectrum. Not what goes over the airwaves, but who gets to use them for what purpose. (You don't want your local HAM interfering with TV or emergency services frequencies)
* regulating the crap out of telcos, preventing much telco rapage (they're doing this less and less, regretably)
* certifying electronic shit so it doesn't interfere with your other electronic shit
Those are pretty much the good things. The bad things are
* trying to be the thought police (nipplegate!)
* being big and slow and bureaucratic (we want more free-for-all spectrum weeeeh ultrawideband weeeh)
* failing to regulate industries despite huge whopping monopoly abuse (media ownership, ADSL/net neutrality, etc.)
Re:What a surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:FOIA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Memory hole (Score:2, Insightful)
KFG
Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Jamming With the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
New phased array tech lets multiple transmitters share a frequency, but are distinguished by their spatial separation. So the FCC's central mission is coming to an end. A lot of their worst moves to sell off any public benefit and protection, and to merely regulate content on "obscenity" (or other culture war buzzwords) is mere desperate grabs for power.
I hope that phased array stations arrive well before the FCC can help the corporate broadcast cartel lock out entry to the media sphere. If we can make it past that dropping sword, we might be fairly home free.
Re:The FCC was right to do so (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were not serious, please disregard the rest of this response. But that's just hilarious! Why don't you compare the ratings of Nova and American Idol and see if your theory holds up? Wise observers of history would more likely note that unregulated free markets tend towards monopoly and exploitation.
You note that news, science, and educational programming in general are of immense value, and yet you call the privileging of them "arbitrary". Market forces do not recognize value; they recognize profit. Better products certainly do not always win in the marketplace. Really, the "free market" does not exist outside of government regulation. Without governments and the rules, regulatons and structure they bring, all we have is a primitive barter system. That is the only true free market; trading milk for eggs.
Who controls the present controls the past. (Score:5, Insightful)
"No," said O'Brien.
He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall.
"Ashes," he said. "Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed."
"But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it."
"I do not remember it," said O'Brien.
Duh, duh, duh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, this is an argument for DRM - if this report had been DRMd (competently), there would probably be very few people with both the knowledge of the report and with the ability to circumvent the DRM so that if someone had wanted it gone, it likely would have been.
That's a good thing, right? [crickets chirping]
Re:Hypocrisy wrt Government Interference (Score:3, Insightful)
can you see the difference?
Re:Report and response are online (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be for redacted documents (see first page). And probably for any text they want to bury by making it unsearchable. Instead some agencies think they can electronically redact by drawing black rectangles atop non-graphical text, as repeatedly reported on slashdot.
Re:For the people... how quaint. (Score:1, Insightful)
As for the slippery slope we find ourselves on . . . well, to get off that would take a few real patriots rather than the collection of whiners we all know who think that by frequenting their favorite blogs they have done their part. These theoretical patriotic individuals, however, seem to have immigrated to a civilized country and are now absent. You should consider the same procedure, while you can.
BillyDoc
Re:What a surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The FCC was right to do so (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians are quick to point out that monopolies are almost always government mandated. Well, duh. Of course they are. It's no accident either.
When corporations reach a considerable size, it only makes sense that the best way to ensure continued growth and desired stock performance is to manipulate some (or all) of public policy. Sure, great product ought to be enough, but what if something goes wrong? What if a competitor suddenly pulls the rug out from underneath you? Why not hedge your bets? Sound business planning really; a little insurance to cover those "unforseens."
To those at the very top of the market ladder (corporations, not people), fascism is a utopia, as long as its fascism they are in control of (or at least benefit from). It's perfect; reduces corporate risk to practically nothing. Fortunately, there are other pressures which, so far, in the US, have kept it relatively under control. But to many it seems like its slipping every day.
See, that's just the thing. You're afraid of Big Brother being a little too big and a little too controlling. What you have to understand is the megacorps want to be the nanny state, not so they can have some sort of Comic Book Evil totalitarian control over you, but to make sure you only buy products from them or their partners.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
100% Flamebait
I quote Bush saying it's his job to keep expectations low. I point out that "news" isn't necessarily "surprises". I point out that the news here is Bush living down to low expectations.
Then I point out that we can do something about it in 7 weeks by voting.
Which part do the TrollMods mod down as "Flamebait"? Of course it's the part about voting, which scares the hell out of them. All these Republican TrollMods have is power abuse. No surprises, not even disappointing, not really news.
Take it away from their elected versions Tuesday, November 7.
Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Earlier this year in regards to the broadcast flags hearings, 2 dems (Stevens & Inouye) stood up and basically said that "having no broadcast flag is a terrible thing content providers will stop providing, so we have to pass this as soon as possible". Which repub Sununu later said (I'll directly quote it because it is so good):
"The suggestion is that if we don't do this, it will stifle creativity. Well...we have now an unprecedented wave of creativity and product and content development...new business models, and new methodologies for distributing this content. The history of government mandates is that it always restricts innovation...why would we think that this one special time, we're going to impose a statutory government mandate on technology, and it will actually encourage innovation?"
The problem I see is everybody tries to pin *everything* on Bush, you trip on a crack and it's his fault, etc. Critize him for the correct things, and you will get people to listen, the witch hunt for trying to tie anything & everything to him is a problem because now people are tuning out because "the sky is falling" has been called and attributed to him too many times. I try to keep a little more of an open mind where I can then actually say "Bush is an ass because of this" and directly point to it, rather than say basically everything is his fault.
Re:FOIA (Score:2, Insightful)
The FCC rejected long-distance telephone service competition in 1968, banned Americans from buying their own non-Bell telephones in 1956, dragged its feet in the 1970s when considering whether video telephones would be allowed and did not grant modern cellular telephone licenses until 1981--about four decades after Bell Labs invented the technology. Along the way, the FCC has preserved monopolistic practices that would have otherwise been illegal under antitrust law. All of this has cost Americans billions of dollars.
After the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removed some barriers to competition, there is even less of a need for the FCC. Local phone customers don't need to worry about the Bells' monopolistic practices, because they effectively aren't monopolies anymore. Cable customers don't need to worry much about monopolistic practices because of satellite TV. Eventually, fiber connections will transport every kind of data.
Before 1934, there were conflicts, but the courts were working with the common-law method of creating rules for the new medium. And such would have worked great, except The Radio Act of 1927, followed by the Communications Act of 1934, gave the FCC unlimited power to assign frequencies, approve broadcasters' power levels and revoke licenses on a whim. The FCC already enjoyed the power to regulate telephone lines and eventually would accumulate the authority to regulate cable as well.
We could abolish the FCC today and not cause any problems whatsoever. What it would mean is returning to bottom-up law instead of top-down, as it is now and has been for the past 80 years or so.
Not only would it prevent any more economic cost of missed opportunities caused by regulation, it would also save taxpayers over $300 million a year.
Now this may be too Libertarian and Free-Market for some people to understand, but that's just me. I've been a Libertarian since before I was able to vote, and I've been in IT and Telecomm since I got my first job. I believe in freedom and the free-market. I also believe in accountability in government, ie, allowing the people of the US have a say in what the government does, as well as answer for their actions. since the FCC is unelected, and given near limitless regulatory power, I have an extreme dislike of them.
now you can see why the "good" in the above post isn't that good, and the bad is, well, not good either.
the FCC has no right regulating them anyhow... but thats more of my free-market [wikipedia.org] philosophy.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
So since only Bush and Cheney are staring at being executed for treason, and then only hanged, we're faced with a different choice in a couple of months. Do you want to unacceptably bad Republicans, or the acceptably not so great Democrats? The real choice is obvious.
That's silly... (joke) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not professional, but Slashdot isn't a professional board. It's not even a geek board - it's a nerd board, and nerds are known for socially inappropriate behavior, like blurting out the truth.
As for metamoderation, it's a joke. I post those rebuttals to moderations so metamod'ers will have more context to judge whether the mod is un/fair. But I don't see any real dampening. It winds up being just a battle of my post frequency karma vs their team of downmod points. That seems to at least allow my free speech to fill the vacuum of their supression. Which seems more American, anyway, or at least familiar to me, a New Yorker.
Re:Hypocrisy wrt Government Interference (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most Slashdotters believe in freedom and diversity of information. When the government censors culture, this restricts the freedom and diversity of information. When a small handful of big businesses own all the major media outlets, this also restricts the freedom and diversity of information.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, our elections don't let us choose "the good one", just "the better" (or "not the worse"). That's one reason why I often talk about Instant Runoff Voting [wikipedia.org] (IRV), or "proportional voting". And why I often say how the parties (politicspeak for "conspiracies") are the worst defect in our system. Until we can vote in a way where everyone's votes count, not just the winners, we don't really have democracy.
But we have something that's acceptably not so great, and we can use it to make it better, even good. Saying "they're all the same", when they're not, just none good enough, makes it impossible to use what we've got to get what we want.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
The hell you say? He got a blow job!!! That's against god's will. It says so in the Bible... Like, Luke 1:69 or something.
Will no one think of the children?!
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is that the assault on our sensibilities comes from all sides. The Republican leadership uses the FUD of terrorism to scare us into supporting draconian suspensions of civil rights, while the Democratic leadership uses FUD about everything else to call our attention away from terrorism. Neither side is telling the truth.
With the GOP having control of the largest political target in the nation (the presidency, of course), the Democrats try to indoctrinate their supporters with the idea that Bush is at fault for everything that goes wrong. We won't get our government back in shape until our politicians are accountable for their actions. As long as they continue not to earn the blame for the bad things they do, and continue to get blamed for the bad things that other people do, things will never improve.
So instead of blaming Bush for everything every time you get the chance, do some research and put the blame where it's due. The FCC has needed a shakeup for many, many years now (going back before this administration), not just in personnel, but also in philosophy. As long as fingers keep getting pointed at Bush, real change will never happen.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
All your crap about how Democrats are somehow pulling my strings, the strings of the media and the government - what are you talking about? Every charge I make against Bush is specific, substantiated, and true. You think Karl Rove is some kind of coatcheck girl at the White House? He's the stringpuller, the election gamer. What kind of insanity compels you to spit the name of John Murtha in response, except your own indoctrination by rightwing talkradio? Because nothing else has the power to make that kind of association. Certainly not anything to do with Murtha.
Down to the FCC. The current FCC has been shaken up since Bush's administration - very much for the worse. That shakeup by the new administration is exactly how the FCC is run. It's Bush's FCC that's shredding the antimonopoly report we're talking about, because it contradicts the handover Bush's FCC ordered under predictions contrary to the facts in the shredded document.
Come back with some facts showing that any of what you spewed has any basis in fact. Because all you just threw at the page is just an elaborate "it's not Bush's fault, because there's someone else in the phonebook to blame".
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
It should also be noted that many Republicans were opposed to the media ownership rules, including Trent Lott.
Any finger-pointing on this issue should probably go toward Powell. Martin is actually much closer to the Bush administration, having worked on his campaign, and the purges indicate that any relationship between Powell's oversight of this report and the Bush administration is tenuous if even existent.
If you have substantial contradicting information, I'd love to read it.
BTW - I don't listen to right-wing talk radio. I'm just right-of-center, and have no love for the current administration or the current GOP leadership in Congress. The warrantless wiretapping was the last straw for me, and I'm hoping for some moderation to emerge from the 2008 fiasco. If McCain and Lieberman were to run together, I'd be tempted to help out with the campaign.
I believe that truth is the most important factor in politics, and I believe that your unwavering finger-pointing at Bush regardless of the issue and regardless of fault harms your efforts to get the blame to stick for the things he has done. It's reminiscent of MoveOn.org taking a position on network neutrality. They took an issue which should have been neutral and made it highly partisan, because they also can't stop pointing the finger (which finger is debatable) at Bush for every bad thing in the dictionary. They harm their own cause, because their vitriol makes it hard for moderates to get at the truth, and therefore scares them away from important issues that would otherwise transcend partisan boundaries.
Federal Corrupt Commision (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the United States of Clear Channel and News Corp.
Re:What a surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
If he was Libertarian, the FCC wouldn't have gone ape shit over Janet Jackson or fined Howard Stern for reading a transcript of an Oprah show discussing "tossing the salad"...for which she of course was not fined. So he looks more like your typical big business, high horse riding moralist Republican.