The FCC petitioned the 3rd U.S. Appeals Court, Philadelphia, for a rehearing late Fri. on the media-ownership decision. In June, the court remanded FCC’s major rules for cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcasters and the concentration of broadcast ownership in local markets (CD June 25 p1). The FCC filed the petition to push back the deadline for certiorari, under which the FCC can try to take its case to the Supreme Court, until after the presidential election, said Media Access Project Pres. Andrew Schwartzman.
After the 3rd U.S. Appeals Court, Philadelphia, remanded major FCC broadcast ownership rules (CD June 25 p1), largely based on a “flawed” logic of the diversity index, Comrs. Adelstein and Copps urged the commission to seek public comment on new rules. “We failed to seek comment on the diversity index methodology last time in a rush to judgement. Let’s get something out to start a dialogue about the index,” Adelstein told us. Said Copps: “It would be a great mistake to drag our feet or rehash old arguments.”
Judges of the 3rd U.S. Appeals Court, Philadelphia, Thurs. remanded FCC’s major rules for cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations and the concentration of broadcast ownership in local markets. The court said the FCC should fix flaws in its diversity index, which it used to determine the new local cross-ownership rules.
The 3rd U.S. Appeals Court decision on FCC’s media ownership rules could happen “any day now,” said Media Access Project Pres. Andrew Schwartzman, speaking at Cato Institute lunch on media ownership. He predicted a decision from the Philadelphia court no later than June 30, but said “it was very hard to tell” what the court would decide. “It may have to go back to the FCC. They could affirm in its entirety. Only time will tell,” he said. On Feb. 11 the judges questioned the FCC on its diversity index for local cross- ownership and asked the Commission how the court should proceed on challenges to the UHF discount rules during 9 hours of oral arguments (CD Feb. 12 p8). It’s been nearly a year since the FCC relaxed its rules on media ownership.
With Comcast CEO Brian Roberts making no secret of his ambitions for further acquisitions, consumer advocates are concerned that the biggest U.S. cable operator could become too big. But there’s no clear answer to the question: How big is too big? The U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., in Time Warner v. FCC, found in 2001 that the FCC wasn’t justified in establishing the old 30% horizontal ownership cap and remanded the case to the agency. The FCC has been examining the issue since then but has come to no conclusions.
It’s hard to understand the distinction between broadcast and print reporters that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made, said Judge Michael McAdam, pres. of the American Judges Assn. (AJA). “I don’t understand the distinction if the issue is an accurate description of a public event,” McAdam said. At issue is an incident at a high school in Hattiesburg, Miss., last week where a federal marshal guarding Scalia ordered 2 reporters to erase tape recordings they were making of his speech (CD April 12 p7).
Citing an alleged “public service deficiency” in broadcasters’ coverage of political candidates, ex-FCC Chmn. Newton Minow and former NTIA Dir. Henry Geller Wed. asked the FCC to launch an “expedited” rulemaking to require free time this fall for candidates in campaigns for local and regional offices. Their proposal would require TV and radio stations to provide 20 min. per day free to candidates, in 5 min. segments, starting 30 days before general elections.
FCC Chmn. Powell said the agency was weighing its options in deciding how to proceed after the 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, refused to rehear a case involving the agency’s regulatory classification of cable modem service. The FCC could take the case to the Supreme Court or decide to forbear (not enforce) the rules. The appeals court let stand a decision by a 3-judge panel, which struck down the FCC’s decision that cable modem should be classified as an interstate information service. That panel had said it was bound by an earlier decision, AT&T v. Portland, that cable modem has elements of both an information service and telecom service.
FCC Chmn. Powell said the agency was weighing its options in deciding how to proceed after the 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, refused to rehear a case involving the agency’s regulatory classification of cable modem service. The FCC could take the case to the Supreme Court or decide to forbear (not enforce) the rules. The appeals court let stand a decision by a 3-judge panel, which struck down the FCC’s decision that cable modem should be classified as an interstate information service. That panel had said it was bound by an earlier decision, AT&T v. Portland, that cable modem has elements of both an information service and telecom service.
The NAB said it would form a task force to review creation of a code of conduct and other options for broadcasters. The announcement Thurs. followed a daylong closed summit on responsible programming (CD April 1 p5)