Congress has been hacking away for years at the Federal Communication Commission's original mandate to regulate the broadcast industry in the public's interest. The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the relaxation of antitrust regulations related to media ownership were major blows. And now, with the release of its Draft Strategic Plan for the 21st Century, the FCC itself has openly renounced its mission as regulator and forfeited democratic concerns in favor of a new role as "market facilitator."

"The FCC is meeting the challenge of reinventing itself to keep pace with the rapidly changing communications industry landscape," rationalized FCC Chairman William Kennard as he presented the plan to Congress August 12.

The FCC insists that new communications technology is leading to greater competition and thus rendering many current antitrust regulations obsolete.

"That's what everyone said when they amended the Communications Act in '96," points out Peter Franck of the National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications. "And we've seen the effects of that on competition."

In fact, according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, more than 4,000 commercial radio stations have been sold since the Telecommunications Act removed limits on how many radio stations could be owned by a single company. And the March/April issue of MediaFile reported that, according to the FCC's own calculations, the overall number of station owners dropped by 12 percent in the first two years after the act's passage. Not surprisingly, minority ownership of stations was particularly reduced.

"Business does just fine without being facilitated by the government," continues Franck. "Having the FCC's role move from regulator to 'facilitator' is like having an agency that's supposed to be regulating the banks help people borrow too much money."

Nonetheless, the FCC plans to restructure its operations by eliminating industry-specific bureaus, and to "implement an aggressive Year 2000 Biennial Review of regulations aimed at eliminating unnecessary rules."

As for managing the airwaves--a public resource--in the public interest, the FCC is opting to regard the public as mere consumers of services best provided by unencumbered media giants.

The Viacom/CBS Merger: Smooth Sailing Ahead

One rule already deemed "unnecessary" by the FCC prohibited any media concern from owning more than one TV station in a single city. On August 5, the commission weakened the regulation by allowing companies to own up to two stations in a local market under certain restrictions (at least eight other competitors must remain after the deal, and neither of the two stations can be among the market's top four).

That change opened the way for the Viacom/CBS merger announced September 7. The merger will create one of the world's largest media conglomerates, second only to Time-Warner.

Many would argue that neither Viacom nor CBS produces much quality programming anyway, and that corporate programming reflects corporate interests whether it's produced by one corporation or two, so the merger will have little effect. Yet "each of these consolidations creates a greater power [and] less chance of public control," laments Jim Naureckas of FAIR.

Viacom intends to purchase CBS for a record $37.3 billion. With television stations in 18 of the top 20 U.S. markets, CBS is the largest television group in the country. It also owns the nation's largest radio network, with 163 stations. The merged company's assets will include several of the top cable stations (such as MTV, VH1, and Nickelodeon), the Paramount Pictures film studio, the Blockbuster video-rental chain, half ownership of the UPN television network and its stations, the Simon & Schuster publishing house, various popular Internet sites, a majority interest in Infinity Broadcasting Corporation (the country's largest radio and outdoor advertising company), and five theme parks. Its total worth: $80 billion.

The consolidation is likely to bring cutbacks in rank-and-file staff, as fewer news and production workers will be needed to produce content for the expanded station base. And ownership of both the production and distribution infrastructure will give the company a greater financial incentive to produce shows in-house rather than buy material from a variety of competing, independent studios. Most importantly, the merged company will command 41 percent of the national television audience, which puts it in conflict with a federal regulation prohibiting any single company from controlling more than 35 percent of the domestic viewership. But with recent "flexibility" in enforcement, and with the likes of former FCC Chairman Dick Wiley greasing the wheels as Viacom/CBS's legal counsel, critics fear that yet another exception will be made for the new Viacom.

A contingent of Viacom/CBS bigwigs--Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, CBS President Mel Karmazin, Wiley, and three others--rushed off to Capitol Hill the morning after the merger's announcement for a behind-the-scenes meeting with federal commissioners to address the issue. And media watchers aren't optimistic about the FCC putting up a fight.

"If they didn't block the Disney/ABC merger, then it's unlikely that they'll block this one," says Naureckas. "It's possible that the FCC may tell them they have to sell some of their stations . . . but they've made all sorts of exceptions for [Rupert] Murdoch--one of the biggest media moguls in the world. Viacom/CBS could say that if the FCC gave him those breaks, then they should get them too."

There has been some talk of a possible antitrust review by the Department of Justice, but no announcement so far. Even if such a review does take place, democratic concerns are likely to take a back seat to narrow definitions of the public good. In the words of FCC Chairman Kennard, "The essential question will be: How will this merger accelerate delivery of digital-age services to all consumers?"

But "services" aren't the only thing Viacom/CBS will be delivering. A September 8 New York Times article reported that the new company "could very well emerge as the world's largest seller of advertising," bringing in twice the profits of the current leader, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. With television, cable, and radio stations, as well as Internet sites and billboards at its disposal, Viacom/CBS will provide "one-stop shopping" for advertisers, the Times said.

"You can literally pick an advertiser's needs and market that advertiser across all demographic profiles," Fred Moran of the ING Barings investment firm cheered in the article, "from Nickelodeon with the youngest consumers to CBS with some of the oldest consumers, and with . . . MTV and VH1 right in the middle."

The Microradio Challenge

The illicit micropower radio movement had grown and fought for locally produced and controlled, noncommercial broadcasting to the point where the FCC could no longer crush it with raids and threats of $10,000-a-day fines and imprisonment. So on January 28 of this year, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making that would reverse its 1978 ban on low-powered FM stations.

The final ruling, however, may produce limited benefits. The number of micropower stations allowed in any given market is likely to be few--the FCC's initial proposal says that San Francisco would be allowed two stations--and the proposal contains no protections against corporate domination of micropower stations. Free-radio advocates worry about the FCC's lack of clarity on whether the low-power stations would be commercial, noncommercial, or a combination, and about the FCC's proposal to allow a single entity to own up to ten micropower stations. In addition, advocates want to change a current regulation allowing only individuals and corporations (for-profit or nonprofit) to own stations, a rule that makes it difficult for small community groups to control programming. And they balk at the FCC's idea of a two-tiered system in which "primary" (500- to 1,000-watt) stations would have bumping rights over "secondary" (50- to 100-watt) stations.

Several commissioners are now responding favorably to microradio advocates' concerns, but Chairman Kennard has been delaying action on the issue.

"The commercial broadcast industry, represented by the National Association of Broadcasters, and public broadcasting, represented by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio, have been fighting it very hard. They keep pressing the FCC for extensions of time," says the NLG's Franck. "They're claiming that squeezing microstations onto the spectrum will interfere with this new digital radio. We have engineering studies to prove that they're wrong. What they're really trying to do is stall it beyond the term of office of the present FCC," he says, in hopes that the next president will appoint a more conservative commission.

The NLG's Committee on Democratic Communications filed detailed comments on the FCC proposal, encouraging the commission to ensure that the new stations are noncommercial, locally owned and operated, under 100 watts, financially accessible to nonprofit community groups, and operated in the service of local communities. The group has also joined forces with FAIR and others to form the Microradio Empowerment Coalition, which has recruited hundreds of people across the nation to sign on to the CDC's comments or submit their own. Even the national AFL/CIO has filed a comment in support of the CDC's goals.

Franck believes that a majority of the current FCC has been swayed in favor of establishing a single-tier system allowing only 50- to 100-watt stations (which would allow an estimated six times more microstations than the two-tiered system and would of necessity play to a community audience), defining them as noncommercial, and granting licenses on a weighted lottery basis that would keep costs down and grant extra points for diversity and public-interest programming.

The deadline for comments on the FCC proposal, however, has been extended again, this time until election day--November 4. Still, Franck warns that potential microradio broadcasters should ready their proposals in case of a favorable decision, as the FCC is likely to set a very short application period of between five days and two weeks.

Going Digital, Going Corporate

It won't be long before digital television and radio make the current analog broadcasting system a thing of the past, and Congress has already erected regulatory barricades to ensure that the expanded possibilities presented by the digital age are reserved for today's biggest media conglomerates.

"With digital TV and radio, they made it absolutely clear that they would not tolerate any new competition whatsoever," says FAIR's Naureckas. "The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates that no one except those who already have a license will get a license to broadcast digitally--which to me is the clearest proof that the FCC and Congress are not interested in the public interest or in competition."

New technologies emerging from Silicon Valley enable radio stations to operate closer to each other on the dial without interference, freeing up more room on the spectrum for additional stations. And the digitalization of television allows a single station to broadcast six to eight channels simultaneously.

But the Telecommunications Act gave away the digital frequency to existing TV stations. The gift--described by former FCC Chairman Reed Hunt as "beachfront property on the cybersea"--was worth up to $70 billion according to some estimates.

"The 1934 Public Broadcasting Act very clearly declared airwaves to be public property," says Franck. "It's a natural resource that exists by the laws of physics. Yet these corporations got, for nothing, spectrum worth millions and millions of dollars. That's just welfare for the already very rich."

One might ask what the public will get in return for such generosity. And indeed, for a brief moment it looked as if at least some politicians on Capitol Hill might be concerned about the implications of the giveaway. The Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasting--also known as the Gore Commission--issued a report last December suggesting that the new digital stations be required to set aside either room or funding for public-interest programming, just as the current analog stations are required to do. But big-business interests succeeded in eliminating any such public-interest mandate.

"For a candidate, this is no time to antagonize the TV station owners and network chieftains who control politicians' most important gateway to voters," observed Norman Solomon in the September/October issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.

Thus, media conglomerates are free to enter the digital age with a stranglehold on the digital market and no obligation to set aside air time for local news, educational programs for children, electoral debates, or any other kind of programming that might serve the public interest.

"What we need is a media system that's not dominated by commercial interests and advertisers," argues the NLG's Franck. "The range of ideas and opinions and culture in a commercially-based media system is incredibly narrow; this system is gutting our democracy. What the FCC should be doing is setting aside a major chunk of spectrum space for noncommercial, community-based media. It should tax the enormous profits that these big media conglomerates are making on the public airwaves and put those funds back into community media."