Lengthy FCC Media Ownership Review Anticipated by Executives, Activists
Broadcasters and activists, poised to battle on ownership rules, agree it will take a year and possibly 2 for anticipated FCC changes in media caps to take effect. Last week’s Commission vote to open a long-awaited rulemaking on cross ownership, TV and radio station limits and duopoly restrictions (CD June 22 p11) will take at least a year to complete, said 5 broadcast executives, lawyers and activists we surveyed. Ownership tweaks will likely be delayed another 6-12 months by court appeals that they said are all but certain.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
“It’s not going to be very fast,” said Georgetown U. Prof. Angela Campbell. “There are still a lot of unknowns, what they do with the studies” and whether FCC Chmn. Martin attempts to get a vote on individual rules or meshes them together, she said. It will be quicker for Martin to try to pass a comprehensive rulemaking, which media activists including Campbell favor, she said: “It’s faster to do one.”
Wed.’s rulemaking will take as long as a month to go through the 8th floor drafting process and be publicized, said broadcast executives. Its release will trigger the start of a 4 month public comment process, likely to end in Nov., said an executive. The 6 field hearings FCC Chmn. Martin has committed to holding may not occur until after all comments have been received, said a source. Reviewing studies on localism, competition and other subjects will take more time. An order loosening caps won’t likely be drafted until next summer -- at the absolute earliest -- predicted an official.
Regardless of the shape of the final rules, they're considered ripe to be appealed to U.S. Appeals Court, Philadelphia, which in 2004 remanded them to the FCC. The court, having kept jurisdiction over the FCC rules now being revisited, could continue its stay or allow them to take effect while an appeal was considered, said sources. “You can assume that anything that happens gets taken to court,” said Media Access Project Pres. Andrew Schwartzman: “Depending on what happens, I would expect the Commission and the industry might ask the court of appeals to lift the stay.”
Public interest groups don’t want loosening of the rules, said Campbell and Schwartzman. “Any change in the status quo will likely be unacceptable to my people,” said Schwartzman. Campbell hopes for a return to what she described as “the old duopoly rule” in which one company can’t own more than one TV station in a market unless it can convince the FCC it would fail without a waiver. “I don’t see any reason for anybody to have a duopoly,” she said: “Anybody who wants to broadcast in multiple streams has digital.”
Broadcasters disagree. Some industry officials said they think the FCC could completely remove cross-ownership restrictions preventing a firm from having a newspaper and TV station in the same city. Caps on radio station ownership in small and mid-size markets could be eased, said sources. Under new rules, broadcasters might be able to own 2 TV stations in all markets except for those with 3 or fewer stations, said an industry lawyer.
Some broadcast executives are wary that deregulation brings the risk of programming rules and Congressional intervention, as occurred in the last round of ownership tweaks. Cross ownership could become a “lightning rod” issue on Capitol Hill because politicians are concerned they'll face more critical news stories if newspapers and TV stations share resources, said one executive.
A push for localism obligations by Comrs. Adelstein and Copps, evidenced in their remarks at the June 21 agenda meeting, raised hackles among some in the industry as it grapples with kids TV programming requirements. “Slapping on program mandates in exchange for ownership relaxation is a concern,” said Jerry Fritz, Allbritton senior vp-legal & strategic affairs: “The meeting had the strange patina of onward to the past -- the possibility of 1960s-style program mandates as a quid pro quo for ownership deregulation.”