Sunday, December 1, 2013
Effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (due by section meeting Wed.)
Discuss one or more of the major effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on technology, content, or industrial policy. Why do you think the FCC enforced more regulation on content at the same time that they ushered in less regulation on media corporations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the major effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on Technology was its effect on industrial policy. For instance, in her paper Vertical Vision, Jennifer Holt details the policy change “eliminat[ing] the former ownership cap” and “increase[ing] the nationwide audience reach limitation from 25 per cent to 35 per cent” (Holt 16). With this policy change, broadcast groups were incentivized to expand their television holdings through mergers, acquisitions, and buyouts, all of which promised future profit. For instance, Holt mentions that Time Warner merged Turner Broadcasting System, providing Warner with Turner’s “successful cable network (TBS, TNN, TNT, etc.) as well as his massive film library” (Holt 16). With these profitable assets, Warner was guaranteed to flourish financially and in addition, gain an edge over broadcasting competitors. Thus, the Telecommunications Act enabled broadcast groups to massively expand their assets, increase profits, and consolidate their media power.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of technological effects, the Telecommunications Act ushered in new technologies to ensure ‘purer’ content on television. Since the act prohibited obscene, lewd content on television, among other things, new technologies arose to ensure that it was enforced. For instance, the V-Chip was developed, which enabled parents to screen what their children watch. In addition, a universal ratings system, similar to the MPAA’s movie system, was adopted by television networks and cable companies, providing viewers with information on the controversial content of the program and what audience (children, teenagers, adults, etc.) the program was appropriate for. Therefore, the Telecommunications Act resulted in technological advances and ratings systems that enabled parents and viewers to determine what programs were appropriate for viewing.
I believe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforced more regulation on content at the same time that they ushered in less regulation on media corporations because the Telecommunications Act made it a political possibility. Prior to the act, a historical trend of American government preferring quality television, which can be ensured through content regulation, existed, suggesting the government would like the ability to ‘censor’ television.
However, if the FCC attempted to regulate content, broadcast lobbyists would likely revolt against the censorship on the hill, causing a political nightmare. Through the act, it seems that the government compromised with broadcast groups by providing the aforementioned desired economic incentives in exchange for the ability to regulate content without political backlash. This theory is supported by the fact that the act provided cable companies with the Cable Right of Refusal, providing these companies with more power over their own content. In addition, the heart of the content restrictions, the Communications Decency Act, was largely passed as a means of enabling parents to better regulate what their children watch. Because of this, broadcast groups would be more likely to agree to the content regulation because it crafts a positive public image by making it seem as if they’re protecting the innocence of the nation’s children and producing quality television, instead of greedily capitalizing on profits. Overall, it appears that the FCC opted to regulate content while loosening corporation restrictions because loosening restrictions enabled them to accomplish their goal of content regulation without political backlash.
One of the largest effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the combination of several industries under the telecom banner.This includes merging cellular telephones with landlines, future internet video with television and local/long distance calling. This had a twofold effect. It allowed for mergers to occur across the telecom industry and it also blurred the lines for where media company control was allowed and regulated.
ReplyDeleteThe FCC started to more highly regulate content because of the loosening of these industries. With many industries beginning to merge under the Act, it seems that many more outlets for media were now under the jurisdiction of the FCC or had the potential to be. With all of these industries merging, the FCC now had a potential crisis where it could not manage all of this content. By doubling down on enforcement of the current content, the FCC was able to send a strong message about these new avenues turning into future "Vast Wastelands". This means that networks would self regulate themselves even further and the FCC would not have to invest the legislature or manpower to do so on its own. While many of the content arenas (mainly the internet) had not gone into use until recently, these regulations mean that much of the professional content on the Internet now inadvertantly follows many of the FCC's regulations.
In terms of content, one of the major provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the section outlining prohibited material as described as, “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent material with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person.” (Hilmes 391). While the Supreme Court later overturned this section regarding content, broadcast programs today are held accountable by the FCC to refrain from exhibiting obscene and/or indecent content. However, upon further research what is considered obscene and indecent to the FCC, one could interpret a number of programs, scenes, characters, plotlines, or series to qualify as indecent or obscene. Indecent is described as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for broadcast medium, sexual, or excretory, activities or organs.” Where obscene is defined as “those works that which, taken as a whole appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” These wordy but vague definitions of what should and should not be shown on television leaves a lot of power to the chairman of the FCC, leaving creators and producers on their toes of what will be “acceptable” to producer leading to a more self-censored medium.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not entirely sure as to why the FCC focused more so on content regulation rather than corporation regulation, I can speculate that it has a lot to do with political agendas, not only within the political sphere of the United States but the politics between corporate heads and regulatory bodies. In an effort to move up in the media corporation hierarchy, it would be wise to get in the good graces of those who regulate it and those who created the regulation organizations.