Why Federal Communication Commission Has Legal Authority Regulate Media Ownership

The Federal Communication Commission or FCC (1934) regulates interstate and international communications by telephones, televisions, cable televisions, radios, telegraph, CB radios, and satellite in over 50 states. The FCC is directed by five commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S Senate.(3)

The media shouldn’t be owned by corporations or viewership numbers. The television is a power platform that is broadcasted directly into the homes, and minds, of almost every American. It has the ability to come into people’s lives to

The FCC does not license cable TV as a requirement for operating the systems because the municipal government is the primary regulator. Unlike broadcasting, the cable systems’ legal rights can be controlled by cities and countries, or by local governments that franchise cable operators.

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

Before the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, existed, there was the Federal Radio Commission. To go into more detail, though, regulating communications in the United States has been going on since the Radio Act of 1912. This was mainly so the military, emergency responders, police, and entertainment companies could get their signals out over the airwaves to the right audiences without any interference. The Radio Act of 1912 established a commission to designate which airwaves belonged to who: those for public use and those for various commercial users. The Federal Radio Commission was established in 1926 to handle the country’s radio needs, which were becoming more and more complex. It was in 1934 that Congress passed the Communications Act. This replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Act. What was a huge change from the previous regulations in place was putting telephone communications under the FCC’s control. The FCC was also established to help break up monopolies over communications that developed in 1934, most notably, breaking up NBC, which eventually spawned ABC.

In docket number 14-28, FCC 15-24, the Federal Communication Commission released a document concerning the protection and promotion of open internet. The internet is essential for speech, our economy, business and innovation, making this a very important issue to examine. In a globalized world, the internet keeps us in contact and update with persons and events all around the world. This document deals with the Open Internet Order, which, “prohibits blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization” of the internet (FCC 3). These objectives are aimed at keeping the internet open for users, and providing a functioning medium for business and communication alike. After the Federal Communication Commission adopted these goals of maintaining

However, those who are against censorship on the Internet believe that it violates their right to free speech. Because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates radio and television, Internet users believe this is the only available forum that guarantees the open exchange of ideas. The freedom of expression is a right guaranteed to Americans and therefore should not be restricted by the government.

Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission- A 1969 case in which the Supreme Court upheld restriction on radio and television broadcasting; these restrictions on the broadcast media are much tighter than those on the print media because there are only a limited number of broadcasting frequencies available.

The likely place to target to shut this thing down before it starts is the Communications and Technology Subcommittee in the House of Represntatives. Any changes to FCC consumer protection powers should start there.

On many occasions, Canada’s telecommunications industry has been criticized for being inefficiently competitive. Claims have been made by the critics of Canada’s wireless sector that there needs to be additional regulation to create more competition, lower prices and improve service quality. In doing so, the Canadian federal government has used these criticisms to their advantage in order to justify interventionist spectrum allocation policies and advocate for additional regulation of the wireless sector (Masse & Beaudry, May 2014). In the fall of 2013, the government even took the unusual step of launching a $9 million ad campaign aimed at publicizing its efforts to support greater competition in the wireless sector and to convince the public of the need to intervene (National Post, December 3, 2013). The telecommunications industry has conducted many lobbying efforts against government intervention and tried to manage public perception around this controversial issue. Furthermore, this essay discusses that the federal government is not acting in the public interest. The government is displaying a positive as opposed to normative stance. The government should allow the market to determine services and the telecommunications industry to control resources. If intervention should take place, it should be done with public interest in mind and not with fabricated policies which harm, instead of help, consumers and the telecommunications industry.

According to Variety on December 1, the FCC is required to review its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they are still in the public interest, but the reviews of 2010 and 2014 have been folded into one and are still ongoing. Paul Boyle said, that some media companies “have moved on” with “no regulatory relief or certainty in sight.” Boyle said that the FCC’s inaction has contributed to the decision by some media companies to either sell their broadcast stations or to divide their publishing and broadcast properties although market valuation is also of primary concern. Broadcasters recently urged the FCC to put their review of the proposed merger of Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable on hold until it can review and update the ownership rules, which also include limits on the nationwide audience reach of a single station group and a ban on the combination of any of the four major broadcast networks.

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

The media regulation in the U.K. is more extensive compared to the U.S. Ofcom is an independent regulator and competition authority across television, radio etc. The PCC, also an independent body, deals with complaints from members of the public about editorial content of newspaper and magazines. The behavior of media is far more regulated in Britain compared to the U.S. In U.S. the views can complain about the content to individual media outlets but in Britain the complaints are published on various governmental website making it more visible. This means that the impact of government regulation is more evident in British media than in the American media.

Through the Federal Communications Commission, all stations are to be licensed and maintain a file that documents what the station has done to operate in the public interest. There are also radio regulations that help to make this possible. The Radio Regulations is an intergovernmental treaty. It conforms and coordinates the activity of the telecommunication networks. It keeps different frequences from different radio services from mixing together. Transmitters are to be observed by radio stations, and procedures are done to ensure technical compatibility. It basically helps to better the development of communications technology. These regulations are accomplished through the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

If you are interested in owning a broadcasting company, you may, however, you would not be allowed to also own a newspaper company at the same time. This is because the Federal Communications Commission A.K.A the FCC will not allow cross-ownership. According to Common Cause (n.d.), the Federal Communications Commission describes cross- ownership as “a single owner depriv(ing) a community of important, diverse source(s) of news, information, and opinion.” This goes to show that if one company were to own both newspaper companies and news stations in one area, then most of its information could be assumed as being biased and one- sided. This is called the cross- ownership ban. Along with broadcast and newspaper cross- ownership, there is also radio and television cross- ownership. This pertains to the number of television and radio stations a company can own in one community. However, the rules on this ban