The Good FCC

THE GOOD FCC
[SOURCE: Lasar's Letter on the FCC, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
{Commentary] Late last year, the Federal Communications Commission made four important decisions that deserve a second glance, not only because they could have an impact on broadcasting, but because they illustrate the extent to which the Commission can promote measures that clearly serve the public interest -- when it wants to.

1) Low Power FM: The FCC formally recommended that Congress remove the requirement that LPFM stations protect full power stations operating on third adjacent channels. The Commission's Order also tightened up rules for LPFM that will make sure that these stations keep their broadcasting local and non-repetitious. And only one LPFM to a non-profit customer, the FCC warned. No more. That move means that the megachurches can't crowd out the rest of us.

2) Diversification of broadcast ownership: the FCC passed a series of reforms that will make it easier for women and minorities to buy and retain broadcast media. The provisions smooth the way for financially distressed stations to sell their signal to a female or minority buyer. They allow minority/women owners more time for construction permits. The provisions make it easier for big media companies to sell off pieces of "grandfathered" combinations of radio, TV stations, and newspapers to minority/women bidders. And they initiate an annual "access to capital" conference to match minority media buyers with media investors. It's a hodge podge of provisions that won't change anything overnight, but a "first step," as FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate called it.

3) Cable caps: The FCC also approved an Order on December 18th that sets at 30 percent the number of subscribers a cable company can serve.

4) Localism: Like their decisions on media diversity, the FCC's December 18th ruling on localism will not shake the media landscape, but it could knock it about in some potentially interesting ways. Among other suggestions, the Order asks for public comment on its conclusion that "licensees should establish permanent advisory boards (including representatives of underserved community segments) in each station community of license with which to consult periodically on community needs and issues." The document also says that the FCC should adopt guidelines "that will ensure that all broadcasters provide some locally-oriented programming." At present, the only broadcast stations that must create community advisory boards are those that receive money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). This is an appropriate requirement. But it also turns CPB stations into conduits for public anger with all of media. It's about time that commercial stations had to take some of that heat.
http://www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/531

* Broadcasters' Turn to Worry About FCC
In broadcasters' favor is that the FCC, in its Dec. 18 vote on the localism initiatives, didn't make any rules but instead indicated what it might do, shadows that won't necessarily remain unaltered by the future. “Any such proposals would need to go through the rulemaking process,” says the attorney, “a process that, if the past is prologue, will take years.” That was one of the reasons why the localism initiatives were not a slam dunk for Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, who has long called for more community input and a tougher license renewal policy. He says that while the cross-ownership change was an order, the localism item was simply a proposal, and that he is skeptical about how fervently the FCC would pursue those regulatory initiatives now that the majority had gotten what it wanted, “which was to loosen newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership.” But that veteran attorney isn't convinced. “The current commissioners have virtually no experience with the old rules, particularly the ascertainment rules,” he says, “and probably don't realize how arcane and outmoded those rules have become.” They were scrapped in the 1980s under the theory that the marketplace was sufficiently vibrant and competitive that a broadcaster would provide programming of local interest because if it didn't, it wouldn't attract enough interested viewers to pay the bills. Asked why it wasn't a reasonable thing to ask the community to weigh in on what local programming broadcasters should air, one broadcast executive who asked not to be identified had a ready answer: “If you could really ask the public what they want, they would say: 'Give me more sex, give me more violence.' Do we really get to find out what the public wants, or are we supposed to find out what Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein want? The elites love the notion of ascertainment.”
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6515719.html