When the rise of cable television began there were many local broadcasters who were worried about what sort of financial state they would be left in once audiences decided to switch over to much larger networks. Time went on and many attempts at regulating cable companies became bigger and bigger issues. The larger networks could reach across the nation, and by doing so would have effectively rendered the local network useless. The people were growing weary of the services provided by the cable companies, as well as the price at which they had been charging for those services. Realizing that this could become a greater issue Congress endeavored to settle this debacle by making the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This law would require cable providers to set aside channels so that local or public broadcasters could take place in the vacant airwaves, which would effectively keep them all from going out of business under the pressure of larger cable networks. The Federal Communications Commission would be responsible for any sort of actions to be taken to ensure that the Act was properly set into place. For those who worked under local and public broadcasting this was the greatest kind of victory, but not everyone was happy about the decision to enact this law. The Act caused many dissenting opinions within the cable industry as they appealed to the courts with the intention of proving that a must-carry policy is unconstitutional. (Ugland,
The paper will serve as a historical background overview of how the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) came into existence. The paper will also break down the key components for which the FTC covers, such as deceptive advertising, baiting and switching and consumer fraud. There will be examples
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. This Act was a major stepping stone towards the future of telecommunications, since this was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment. One of the primary goals of the law (Title III specifically) was to let anyone enter any communications business “to let any communications businesses compete in any market against any other." Also, the new Telecommunications Act allowed the FCC, and Congress, to "update" the old - and outdated - Telecommunications Act of 1934.
As an overview, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (S.167) was established in 2005. The policy consists of several different and revised subtitles within
Cable systems regulations are less strict, but still come with federal limits on ownership. The Cable television consumer protection and competition act of 1992 influenced the congress to direct the FCC to establish two types of limits defining the line between the owner’s reach of operation, “horizontal,” and the cable operator’s integration with content providers, ”vertical.” The horizontal rule provided cable companies with 30 percent national pay, and no more than 40 percent to the vertical rule. These rules were tested in the case of Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC as unconstitutionally arbitrary. The court said, “we recognize that in drawing a numerical line an agency will ultimately indulge in some inescapable residue of arbitrariness… But to pass even the arbitrary and capricious standard, the agency must at least reveal a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” (pg. 408, ch. 9, The FCC and Broadcast Licensing).
In 1890, the United States Congress passed the first Anti-Trust Law, called the Sherman Act, in an attempt to combat anti trusts and as a “comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade.” (The Antitrust Laws). Twenty four years later in 1914, Congress passed two more Anti-Trust Laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the Federal Trade Commission whose aim is to protect American consumers, and the Clayton act, which fills in any loopholes in the Sherman Act. Ultimately, these three Anti Trust Acts regulate three core problems within the market: restricting the creation of cartels, restricting the “mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition”, and prohibit the creation of monopolies in the market (“The Antitrust Laws”).
ALJ On November 13, 2015, A Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that LabMD did not violate Section 5(a)of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) by failing to provide reasonable security for personal information on computer networks. This is the first decision that limits the authority of FTC to regulate businesses that fail to appropriately safeguard their consumers’ electronic personal information.
In the United States Supreme Court case Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Verizon Communications argued that it was wrong and unreasonable for the Federal Communications Commission to regulate and set leasing rates for networks. Ultimately, the January 14th decision held that the Federal Communications Commission can indeed set rates charged by the service provider for leased elements that are completely unbound from the provider's investment. Also the Federal Communications Commission can also require service provider's to combine certain elements of their networks at the request of the customer or user. However, in regards to network neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission does not have the
The Supreme Court of the United States of America overturned previous court rulings in favor of Citizens United. Now companies could interact and portray political leanings in both commercials and documentaries. Previously, according to the case McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, the Court ruled against such things.“Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury finds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.” (Justice Kennedy, No. 08-205) Despite it being an apparent victory for the avocation of free speech leftists around America decried the decisions of the Supreme Court. Articles from major media headlines read “The Many Sins of 'Citizens United'”, “How to Reverse Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”, “10 Ways Citizens United Endangers Democracy”(TheNation, TheAtlantic, Demos) There was an uproar from media about how this bill will ruin all future elections. Making it more about who spends money instead of who deserves to win. However, Republicans rejoiced with the upholding of free speech. Senator Mitch McConnel for Kentucky said this, “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important
In the case of FCC versus Pacifica Foundation, (1978), the Supreme Court hearing became necessary to offer clarity on Section 326 of the Telecommunications Act regarding its limitations and the FCC jurisdiction. The appellant assumes Section 326 of the Telecommunications Act prevents FCC the authority to review the content of completed broadcasts. However, the Supreme Court manifested that FCC could still sanction a station broadcasting obscene, indecent, or profane materials.
: In 1992, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act required cable companies to give a certain number of their channels to local broadcast programs. The Cable Act included several “must-carry” rules that limited the control of open channels by cable programmers and increased competition for the left over channels. Soon after the Act became law, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., the owner of several cable programming operations, brought this case against the FCC and challenged if the must-carry regulations were constitutional. A special three-judge U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Turner Broadcasting, granting the summary judgment that the requirements were consistent with the First Amendment and intermediate scrutiny
The FCC’s move will allow companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to charge internet companies for speedier access to consumers and to block outside services they don’t like. The change also axes a host of consumer protections, including privacy requirements and rules barring unfair practices that gave consumers an avenue to pursue complaints about price gouging.
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act"), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and policies also significantly impact Comcast’s decision on the company's businesses, including cable system and broadcast station ownership, video services customer rates, carriage of broadcast television stations, broadcast programming content and advertising, package of programming to customers and other providers, access to cable system channels by franchising authorities and other parties, the use of utility poles and conduits, and the offering of high-speed internet and phone services (Marketline, 2013). Failure of Comcast's businesses to comply with the laws and regulations may result in administrative enforcement actions, fines and civil and criminal liability. In as much that laws, policies and regulations are much stricter in the U.S. this would present significant risks to the company's businesses which may affect its operating
With the rise of new technologies, there is certain debates on whether or not media regulations are a good or a bad thing. There are benefits and consequences for both sides. In a sense, regulations are an essential element in our society. Every time there is a new technology, regulations must be made in order to create rules that influencers and organizations must follow. Stricter media regulations means would protect public interests, protect individual rights, insuring fair competition, and censoring violent and innappropriate material. On the other hand, the incorporation of media regulations by the government could potentially unconstitutional and limit the freedoms of the press. One must look at both sides to form their own opinion about how much regulation is needed.
Numerous complaints were received by the Government stating that there has been unreasonable price hike in cable television by the cable operators. Moreover, the cable operators were not paying appropriate revenue by concealing there income and under-reporting their income. The cable operators defended themselves by stating that the broadcasting industry is unregulated and they are forced to increase the price for proving cable television services as the broadcasting companies can increase the charges as per their wish. In order to address these problems, the government appointed a specialized task force.
After receiving the three applications, the government spent over three years evaluating the proposals of the applicants and finally made an announcement on 15th October saying the Chief Executive in Council approved two applications (from Fantastic TV and HKTVE) for free television licenses. The whole society was shocked because that means HKTV, which is considered as the most competitive applicant among the three companies, is not given a free-to-air television license.