[DMCA-Activists] Dan Gillmor on FCC Media Dereg Decision

[Seth Johnson]

(One more on the FCC media deregulation decision.  Dan Gillmor's column from
yesterday.  -- Seth)

> http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5989915.htm

 
FCC's Powell must be held to his word


By Dan Gillmor
Sun, Jun. 01, 2003   

 
Monday, barring an 11th-hour change of bureaucratic heart, the Federal
Communications Commission will give a gaggle of powerful corporations a gift
of enormous value. The three Republican commissioners will outvote two
Democrats in easing long-standing rules designed to prevent a few companies
from controlling too much of the media we read, hear and view.

The question is not whether the FCC vote can be stopped, though a draft plan
may be tweaked a bit at the edges. The Republican majority, led by President
Bush's handpicked chairman, Michael Powell, appear determined to proceed
despite opposition from what may be the most ideologically diverse group
ever assembled.

To be fair, the commission is under pressure from the courts, which have
interpreted current law in a way that almost requires more media
consolidation. Congress, once again, has failed to step up to an issue of
paramount national importance.

Assuming the fix is in, let's ask a different question: Where do we go from
here?

We, the people, need to understand what's happening, and why. Then we need
to get angry. We need to get organized, and take the fight back to the halls
of power.

And we need to call Powell's bluff. He's reassuring everyone that our fears
are groundless, but now he has to back his lofty words with genuine action.

By itself, the FCC's support of further media consolidation could have been
relatively harmless. It's not totally removing limits on what one company
can own in a given community or nationwide, after all, just making the
limits less stringent.

We could even view the FCC's move, as Powell has suggested, in the context
of a media scene that is getting more diverse, at least at the edges.
Information technology makes it easier and cheaper to create art and
journalism. And the Internet gives creators potentially global reach. Nice
theory, anyway.

But we have to look at the FCC's latest policy move in two additional
contexts. First, consider the recent spate of mergers and acquisitions by
the biggest players, to the point where the five giants now control the vast
majority of commercial media in America. Diversity in viewpoints is a
business tactic to these companies, to be used if profitable and discarded
if not.

The shameful lack of coverage of this issue, especially by the broadcasters
and media conglomerates that stand to gain the most, is a red flag. When
media giants are asked to cover issues where they have such an enormous
stake in the outcome -- particularly when coverage might inflame the general
public to the point where it demanded a different outcome -- they do what is
best for the bottom line.

The second context in which we must see the FCC's action involves the future
of the Internet itself. The promise of the Net is in its nature, a medium in
which we can create and disseminate news, art and other ``content,'' not
just consume it.

It's not alarmist, given the plain-as-day trajectory of policies --
including the FCC's own recent actions -- to suggest that the Net's promise
is in jeopardy. A few giant media and telecommunications companies could
well grasp full control of the Net.

Earlier this year, the FCC gave U.S. regional phone companies the right to
control access to their high-speed data pipes. This basically mirrored
earlier policies allowing the cable companies, which also created networks
by getting government-granted monopolies, to refuse to share access to their
lines.

In other words, U.S. high-speed data access will soon be under the thumb of
two of the most anti-competitive industries around.

I doubt they'd dare to stamp out speech they don't like. But they could turn
their systems into what industry people call ``walled gardens,'' where the
content they provide gets preferential treatment and where they discriminate
against material they don't control.

This is not idle speculation. Cisco Systems, the company that sells the gear
used to direct Internet traffic around the Internet, is happily offering
telecommunications companies the tools to create these walled gardens.

Will Congress step in? Doubtful, unless we force the issue ourselves. The
broadcasters, who are among the winners in this new arrangement, hold a club
over the lawmakers: airtime during election campaigns. That clout led
Congress a few years ago to give the broadcasters airwaves worth tens of
billions of dollars, without any public-interest requirements in return.

Powell's FCC could prove its good intentions by following through on a
direction the chairman has favored in speeches and the commission's staff
has touted in policy papers: It could free up more of the airwaves for
high-speed data, creating a way around the phone and cable monopolies.

If Powell is serious about reform -- about ensuring a vibrant and diverse
media -- he'll push ahead with spectrum reform. If he's just a puppet of the
media and communications oligarchy, he won't. It's that simple.

You can help him move in the right direction. E-mail him at address@hidden
or call the FCC at (888) 225-5322. And call your elected officials in
Washington, at (202) 224-3121, and tell them you want more media diversity
and more choices for your communications and information.

Or you can just sit back and watch TV, and be happy with what the oligarchs
feed you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Gillmor's column appears each Sunday and Wednesday. Visit Dan's online
column, eJournal (www.dangillmor.com). E-mail address@hidden;
phone (408) 920-5016; fax (408) 920-5917.  


-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.