Sunday, December 1, 2013
Effects of the Telecommunications Policy 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)
As discussed in lecture, some effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in terms of deregulation and promotion of new technologies included ownership caps increased, cross-ownership allowed, longer broadcast license terms, digital TV frequencies assigned, and previously set regulations on cable rates revoked. In terms of restriction of content, the Communications Decency Act, V-Chip and Ratings System, “must carry” local stations within a 60 mile radius, signal scrambling, and Cable Right of Refusal were enacted to regulate unwanted content and protect the viewers from all ages from unwanted exposure to indecent material on television.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major effects on the technology that this act enabled was the Communications Decency Act. Basically this took in consideration that there will always be obscene and violent material on television. To protect minors and other audiences from being exposed to this material voluntarily and well as intentionally, the V-Chip and Ratings System were added. For instance, the V-Chip allowed the television to block programs while the ratings system enabled viewers to be aware of what kind of content to expect in the program as well as the recommended age range for the program.
The FCC may have used the increase of regulation to set standards for policy makers to have structure in the world of television and broadcast media. Especially with obscenity and unwanted content being leaked on air, these preventative measures such as V-Chips allows the standardization of TV production. At the same time, some leeways given to media corporations may be the result of these regulations of content. For instance, allowing cross-ownership gives these media corporations more leg-room for their company interests in the world of television and media.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 proved to be a godsend for the major players in the television industry, namely the large conglomerates that already had a foothold in the market. The act lengthened the lifespan of a broadcast station license to eight years, raised ownership caps from 25% to 35%, allowing companies to extend their reach into the national market by an additional ten percent, and provided existing television station a frequency in the UHF band for the purpose of transmitting digital services. Finally, the act revoked the Cable Act of 1992, ending the regulation of rates charged by cable providers. The businessmen involved in the field were significantly freer to do as they wished. But content creators? Not quite as much.
ReplyDeleteThe Act also introduced the Communications Decency Act, which was later overturned by the supreme court, made illegal the transmission of “obscene” or otherwise objectionable content on any medium, including television, radio, cable, and even the internet. The web was the primary target of the bill, as the other three mediums were already subjugated to content regulation. The question that this raises, besides issues related to freedom of expression, is one of feasibility. The web is massive, a set of data encompassing an incalculable number bytes, how could any one government reasonably expect to regulate such a massive entity? Especially when accounting for security measures and the little known Undernet. It’s as if the bill was not written by experts but politicians looking to score brownie points with their base without having to approach any matters of substance.