Commentary: Much ado about nothing

On June 2, after its required biannual review of existing federal regulations, the Federal Communciations Commission enacted changes that relax certain rules governing regulation in the media market. The initial public response to these measures was negligible because of the paucity of coverage in the media about the deregulation hearings, which were held in the months prior to June 2. A small group of people did react strongly against the measures, and general awareness and concern have increased significantly since the institution of the changes. Although the public does have cause for concern in regard to these changes, much of the alarm voiced represents exaggerated notions of the scope of the possible effects of deregulation.

The actual changes to the rules are surprisingly minor, considering the tremendous uproar over the issue. The three most significant rules changes were the lifting of the ban on media cross-ownership, relaxation on the limit on percent coverage of the national audience per company, and relaxation of the rules governing the ownership of multiple stations.

For cross-ownership, restrictions have been lifted in large markets (more than eight television stations), relaxed slightly in medium-sized markets (four to eight television stations), and remain basically unchanged in small markets (fewer than four stations). The limit change on market share from 35 to 45 percent of the national audience seems significant. However, the reality of the change will be small because the counting rules for stations will change regarding UHF stations, which were only counted as half a station in the past, but will now be counted as full stations as networks switch to digital signals (the half-counting method was used to compensate for the weakness of UHF broadcast signals).

The final change allows companies to own two television stations in medium markets, three in huge markets (New York, Los Angeles, etc), and still restricts it to one in small markets.

Proponents of the FCC's actions claim that the changes will increase competition in the media industry, lowering prices and raising quality. Broadcast networks have traditionally had difficulty competing with cable networks, especially in the past few years, due to the increased clout of the now-massive cable networks. Broadcasters claim that FCC deregulation will equip them to compete with cable networks, and increase the quality of coverage.

Critics of the rule changes cite potential abuses to the system and the possibility of decreased competition in media markets. They argue that consolidation will further undermine the expression of viewpoints that lie outside the mainstream or the agenda of network officials. Furthermore, with fewer sources of meida competition on the local level, many people harbor concerns that there will be an effective decrease in quality of media due to the lack of alternatives for consumers.

Ultimately, nay-sayers claim that as a result of the possible consolidation of media firms locally, competition and quality will decrease dramatically enough to threaten the function of our democracy through undermining public access to information.

Not surprisingly, the final effect of the June 2 deregulation will fall somewhere between the optimistic projections of broadcast networks and other media industry lobbyists and the dismal vision of consumer lobbyists. Most networks are currently strapped for cash; and in many circumstances of networks that are not, it does not make financial sense to pursue consolidation because of the high cost of acquiring another affiliate or branching out into cross-ownership of multiple mediums. Therefore, consolidation, although unquestionably likely, will probably occur slowly and on a relatively small scale, with minor effects in most areas and hardly any in others.