FCC Stifles Broadcast Competition


© Bryan Johnson

It should be no surprise to anyone with a television set that the federal government plays a great role on what you are permitted and what you are not permitted to watch. Indeed, the Federal Communications Commission restricts everything from what radio talk show host Howard Stern can tell us about strippers (or as I prefer to call them "exotic dancers") to what kind of "public interest" content must be carried on all cable operators throughout the U.S.

Everything recent form of censorship, from the V-chip that restricts content over the TV, to federal fines for Stern's talk about females who are often overly-friendly with one another, has at sometime been under serious consideration at the FCC. While many of these issues in the past have revolved around free speech vs. government censorship issues, today's FCC now is working its way into purely competition-related issues.

Since its inception, cable operators in the U.S. have existed in a near monopoly. Arguments to induce competition into the cable racket have always been met with such smug skepticism as, "what can you do about it, allow multiple operators the ability to dig up everyone's yard so they can lay their own cable?" Should every house be wired to receive broadcasts from multiple suppliers?

In the past the answer to such questions was always, no. In fact, the FCC and other agencies spent much time regulating the prices of cable providers because there was no competition. This is not the case anymore.

With the rise of home-installed satellite systems has come the first real competition to the cable industry. Now, for as little as $99 dollars, customers can have installed in their home a personal satellite dish that receives broadcasts from all over the world. Viewers have the option of adding onto these systems premium sports packages that allow them to watch nearly any professional football game televised.

As these systems have grown, several laws have been enacted by Congress to regulate them. Some of these laws are the result of the fact that satellite systems now are encroaching on other monopolies: local network broadcasts.

When TV first originated, the U.S. was carved up into broadcast areas. Networks were to be carried by "local affiliates," at that time, ABC, NBC, and CBS. These affiliates were the only companies permitted by law to carry the network. So, if a person living in West Palm Beach, Florida wanted to watch NBC, he or she would have a choice of one channel, the local NBC affiliate.

Go To Page: 1 2 3


The copyright of the article FCC Stifles Broadcast Competition in Political Economy is owned by . Permission to republish FCC Stifles Broadcast Competition in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo


Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: View all related messages

2.   Jul 2, 1999 8:03 AM
Thanks for your post. Of course, you are free to vent here whenever you want.

I too and a DirecTV subscriber and am upset with the recent cave-in by the company to the local affiliates.

You may ...


-- posted by BJohnson


1.   Jun 28, 1999 12:31 PM
I'm a Direct TV subscriper, and I live in an area where network television reception is poor. The passing of this act not only serves to alienate the satellite subscriber, but makes one choose not to ...

-- posted by rdrnr





For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Bryan Johnson's Political Economy topic, please visit the Discussions page.