On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission proposed reducing some regulations on broadcasters that have been in place for decades. One of these regulations currently prohibits a company from owning a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same city. Another one currently prevents a company from owning more than one national television network (CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox).

According to an article in Wednesday’s New York Times, the proposed rule changes come as part of a biennial review process ordered by Congress as part of the overhaul of the telecommunications industry in 1996.

Proponents of the proposed changes claim that the restrictions have become outdated because people are turning to new technologies like satellite television and high-speed Internet services. Recent corporate deals in the broadcast, cable and telephone industries have been testing limits set by the FCC. and Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

FCC Chairman William E. Kennard said “the report we issue [Tuesday] balances the public interest in diversity of ownership with the demands of a changing marketplace and the broadcast industries need to realize economic efficiencies and remain competitive.”

However, these changes would compromise the entire point of having an FCC in the first place. The cross-ownership and dual-network regulations are at the heart of the FCC’s mission to promote diversity on the airwaves.

When similar regulations preventing companies from owning multiple radio stations in the same market were relaxed in the mid-1990s the change was immediately noticeable.

When I arrived in the Twin Cities area in 1992, the airwaves were fairly diverse. One station in particular, KREV 105, was an excellent example of this diversity. The early 1990s were the height of the alternative music scene, and KREV prided itself in playing “non-commercial” bands. I often felt that, like the alternative movement itself, the quest to find truly alternative music frequently led to music that was non-commercial because it was awful, but I knew a good number of people who refused to listen to any other station.

When the safeguards preventing the ownership of multiple stations were lifted, KREV and it’s lucrative three broadcasting frequencies were snatched up. While KREV could compete in a local market it could not hold its own against media conglomerates. When the sale was announced some people ditched school and went to downtown St. Paul to protest. The Twin Cities no longer has stations with the charm of KREV and there is a lot more overlap of formats as opposed to the more distinct programming of the past. Homogeneity in ownership simply does not lead to diversity.

According to the FCC. the two emerging networks, UPN and Warner Brothers, are still developing and should be able to solicit investments from a major network. However, this altruism is put into question since Viacom holds a half interest in UPN. The dual-network rule has threatened to force Viacom to sell its interest in UPN.

Viacom’s 1999 Revenue was almost $13 billion, which leads me to suspect that they have a lobbying presence in D.C. Viacom’s ownership does nothing to promote diversity whatsoever. Most people have no idea what Viacom owns, so I’ll do a public service to list the highlights here.

According to their Web site, Viacom owns the CBS network, half of UPN, MTV, MTV2, VH1, Nickelodeon, TNN, CMT, Showtime, The Movie Channel and half of Comedy Central amongst other cable channels. It owns Paramount Pictures, Paramount Television, Spelling Television, Blockbuster Video, and Paramount Home Entertainment (which distributes videos and DVDs). It owns Famous Music Publishing, which holds over 100,000 copyrights and Simon & Schuster Publishing, which published 59 New York Times Best Sellers in 1999 alone. It owns United Cinemas International, which has 868 movie screens in the U.K., Ireland, Germany, Austria, Spain, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Argentina, Brazil and Panama, and it’s parent company, National Amusements Inc. operates 1300 movie screens in the U.S., U.K. and South America. This adds up to over 500,000 copyrights.

To throw out a million dollar economics term, owning Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, Blockbuster and The Movie Channel is vertical integration. Through vertical integration companies can prevent new entry into an industry.

If Viacom is not already a monopoly it is well on its way to being one and certainly doesn’t need any help from the government. Allowing Viacom to pick up UPN simply can’t promote diversity.

Equally troubling is the proposed easing of cross-ownership restrictions.

Under current regulations the Tribune Company (Chicago Tribune, WGN, Chicago Cubs, large investors in AOL and the WB) would have to sell some properties in New York, L.A. and Hartford to acquire Times Mirror (L.A. Times, Baltimore Sun and numerous magazines).

Allowing companies to own both newspapers and television stations would greatly compromise the integrity of news reporting and do a disservice to our First Amendment rights.

According to Kennard himself “the majority of Americans still get most of their news and public affairs information from broadcast stations, and in a participatory democracy like ours, it is vitally important that we encourage the widest possible dissemination of this information from diverse and antagonistic sources.”

This is why it is paramount for the FCC to stand up to bullying from media conglomerates and keep the restrictions that have served us so well in the broadcasting age.

---

Erik Hoversten is a senior in math from Eagan, Minn.