Is FCC chairman Julius Genachowski spicing up his resumé for a future career with one of the companies he used to regulate or does Rupert Murdoch deserve an extra special Christmas gift this year?

Mr. Genachowski has breathed new life into an industry-friendly plan that would allow a handful of companies to own or control even more media outlets  — the same kind of knuckle-headed thinking that brought us companies like Clear Channel that own more than 800 radio stations you can’t tell apart and an integrated media and telecom empire growing at the expense of competition.

Whether Genachowski considers “diversity” a dirty word or whether he is nostalgic for the days of William Randolph Hearst, his sudden interest in a twice-rejected harebrained scheme to allow one company to own even more is a stupendously bad idea. This is particularly true when the guy ready to benefit the most is running a company that looked the other way when its reporters hacked ordinary citizens’ phones and then used what was heard as the basis for scandalous tabloid reporting.

Would you be comfortable allowing Rupert Murdoch to own and control virtually all of your local news?

Phillip “Ask yourself if your interests or theirs are served by more media consolidation” Dampier

Regardless of Murdoch’s personal politics, the concept of a small handful of companies or media moguls reinforcing their media oligopoly with even more consolidation hardly has a track record of success for consumers. One need only look at what the 1996 Telecommunications Act and subsequent deregulation foolishness did for local radio and television stations. Do you even listen to local radio any longer? If not, why not?

• Is it the fact the people on your “local” radio station strangely mispronounce streets and local towns because, in fact, they pre-record those messages from a city several hundred miles away?
• Does your local radio station even bother with news any longer, or is it simply easier to rely on a national radio newscast picked off a satellite for three minutes an hour?
• Do you have a trigger finger on the dial when the station stops playing music and starts playing endless ads?
• Do you get the feeling any DJ that plays something not on the focus-group tested and pre-analyzed 50 song playlist will automatically be electrocuted in his chair?
• Does your local television station run six hours a day of infomercials and practically no local programming?
• Do you mind that some of your local stations have slashed local news budgets and may have even handed over their newscast to a competing TV station (or doesn’t bother with one any longer?)

What the FCC used to demand from local stations to demonstrate “local commitment” has been relegated to the rubbish bin. Today, local stations are mere pawns to be bought, sold or traded by well-consolidated media groups. It’s all about the money, not so much about the programming.

Radio created its problems adopting cookie-cutter, ad-infested formats that deliver no diversity and little to no local flavor. You might as well create your own ad-free playlist with an iPod or smartphone and be done with it. That is exactly what many former listeners do.

Local television lost viewers after programming budgets were slashed and local news operations were cut or contracted out. The quest for fatter profits for the corporate parent come at the expense of appealing programming. Remember when your local station ran movies or syndicated entertainment shows overnight, in the afternoon or on weekends? No more. Thanks to deregulation and capitulation to basic cable, your local station now runs program length commercials for the Skin Tag Remover, mineral makeup that involved putting ground up rocks on your face, or the Lint Lizard. Compelling viewing this isn’t.

Now the FCC wants to bring this same “success story” in spades by allowing consolidation to accelerate. Only instead of one company owning a bunch of local radio and television stations, it now wants to permit that same company to own your local newspaper, too.

Happy days these are for the likes of media baron Murdoch, who already owns local media in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, but now wants the local newspaper in both cities as well. It represents an expansion of Murdoch’s media echo chamber the free flow of information required in a democracy cannot afford.

But Murdoch isn’t the only one prepping the champagne. Companies like Comcast-NBC could end up owning your newspaper, two major local television stations, eight local radio stations, and of course also provide your overpriced Internet access, phone and cable-TV service.

Chinese Central Radio & Television in Beijing doesn’t get this level of control, but under the latest FCC plan, Fox, Disney, Viacom, Comcast, Time Warner, and Clear Channel each would.

Murdoch and his supporters argue that allowing greater media consolidation will lead to a rescue of the ailing newspaper industry which is losing readers and subscribers in the Internet age.

I would argue the fate of newspapers, like local radio and television, is at the hands of their corporate owners who have slashed budgets to maximize profits at the expense of readers. Murdoch’s ownership would not change this, but would allow him to further influence the media landscape for his own personal and professional agenda. Great Britain learned this first hand with Murdoch’s tabloid newspapers. The pervasive illegal phone hacking and other abuses under Murdoch’s watch became so bad, an independent report regarding the tawdry affair now advocates the need for an independent body to review media excesses and start bringing abusers to account.

Real competition used to manage that pretty well. Those days are dwindling back home in the United States.

For at least 20 years, journalism advocates have complained local newsrooms have been gutted in cost-cutting maneuvers to allow media groups to buy and sell newspapers like they were baseball cards. After every sale, more cost-cutting. First to go were local consumer reporters and investigative journalists who antagonized local advertisers with their accounts of abusive car dealers or incompetent repair companies. Many took their ad business elsewhere.

Reporters remaining on the payroll were given more stories to cover and little time to investigate. With looming deadlines, the result all-too-often is superficial reporting that relies on “he said, she said” coverage. Many newspapers also reduced local coverage in favor of cheaper wire service reports, often outdated by the time readers saw them.

Some editors counted the days until a popular columnist decided to retire. That’s one more person off the payroll. The local movie reviewer is an endangered species, now replaced with a national columnist who covers the same movies for a lot less money. In some newspapers, some local reporting comes courtesy of local bloggers that work for free or for a pittance.

Copps

With reporting like this, many newspapers are at risk of becoming irrelevant and are already a poor value for money. Those that have a chance have learned investing in local reporting can make the difference, especially if those reading the newspaper online are asked to help contribute to the cost of gathering and disseminating the news.

One thing we have learned watching 20 years of deregulation: the larger media companies get, the less innovative they become. The proof is available on your radio dial today, if you still even listen.

That isn’t just me saying it. Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said much the same thing:

“[America’s news and information ecosystem] has suffered the same kind of collapse as so much of America’s physical infrastructure—witness the sorry state of our bridges, highways, streets, public transportation, airports and public utilities. So, too, in media. Private sector consolidation led to the closing of hundreds of newsrooms and the firing of thousands of investigative reporters who should be combing the beats to hold the powerful accountable. Instead journalism has been hollowed out as badly as those rust-belt steel mills. Investigative journalism hangs by a slender thread, replaced by vapid infotainment, bloviating talking heads, and a dry well of facts and real-world analysis.

The public sector is at least equally culpable because government—especially the FCC where I served for more than a decade—blessed just about every media merger and acquisition that came before it. Then it proceeded, over the better part of a generation, to eviscerate almost all of the specific public interest guidelines that had been put in place over many years to ensure that the people’s airwaves actually serve the people.

[…] Instead of hurrying in the wrong direction, wouldn’t the Commission’s time be better utilized by considering (and actually voting on) some of the dozens of recommendations that have been put before it by civil rights and public interest groups to establish programs and incentives to encourage minority and female ownership? It is time for the FCC to take a deep breath, change direction, and get on with the huge challenge of encouraging a diverse media environment that serves all of our citizens and that nourishes a thriving civic dialogue.”

Readers can take action by clicking on the infographic above and sign the petition from Free Press to send a clear message to the FCC more is less. Demand media diversity and a return to local accountability from those occupying the public airwaves.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act. The rhetoric rarely matched the results.

Washington insiders are predicting Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski will leave his position early in President Obama’s second term.

It cannot come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Obama Administration has been the poor performance of a chairman that originally promised a departure from the rubber stamp-mentality that allowed Big Telecom providers to win near-instant approval of just about anything asked from the Republican-dominated FCC of the Bush Administration. If only to underline that point, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell joined Republican ex-commissioner Meredith Atwell-Baker on a trip through the D.C. revolving door, taking lucrative jobs with the same cable industry both used to oversee.

We had high hopes for Mr. Genachowski when he took the helm at the FCC — particularly over Net Neutrality, media consolidation, and predatory abuse of consumers at the hands of the comfortable cable-telco duopoly. Genachowski promised strong Net Neutrality protections, better broadband — especially in rural areas, an end to rubber stamping competition killing mergers and acquisitions, and more aggressive oversight of the broadband industry generally.

What we got was the reincarnation of the Cowardly Lion.

The Washington Post reviews Genachowski’s tenure during the first term of the Obama Administration and reports he has few unabashed supporters left. Telecom companies loathe Genachowski’s more cautious approach and consumer groups hate his penchant for caving in when lobbyists come calling. In short, another Democrat that talks tough and caves in at the first sign of trouble.

“His tenure has been nothing but a huge disappointment because he’s squandered an opportunity to give consumers the competitive communications market they deserve,” Derek Turner, head of policy analysis at public interest group Free Press told the Post. “If someone like him upholds compromise, it quickly leads to capitulation, which is what he’s done. He folds…to the pressure of big companies.”

Genachowski’s Record:

• Heavily promoted rural broadband and oversaw a review program measuring actual broadband speeds against those claimed by providers. But much of the money available for improving rural broadband has been separately awarded to “middle mile” and “institutional networks” that are not accessible to most consumers or businesses. Genachowki has heaped automatic praise on many of the phone companies winning broadband funding, despite the fact many of them are satisfied giving consumers no better than 4Mbps service;
• Reformed the outdated Universal Service Fund, which long outlived much of its usefulness, into a broadband expansion fund. But some unintended consequences have led to some rural providers suspending network upgrades because of funding uncertainties still unresolved;
• Approved a blockbuster merger deal between Comcast and NBC-Universal that included temporary “hard-won” concessions Comcast later admitted they were going to offer anyway – merger or not. The result is a new high bar for tolerating super-sized media consolidation with no serious consideration of the impact on consumers. The latest evidence: support for Rupert “Phone Hacker” Murdoch’s latest efforts to buy more newspapers in the United States;
• Rejected an AT&T/T-Mobile merger deal, but only after the Justice Dept. took the lead dismissing it as an anti-consumer, anti-competition nightmare. Within hours, Genachowski’s office issued a “me, too” press release condemning the deal he said little about earlier;
• Demanded a strong Net Neutrality framework to protect the open Internet, but utterly caved under pressure from politicians receiving hefty corporate contributions from AT&T and others. The resulting loophole-ridden “protections” do not apply to wireless, and the industry-approved compromise is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by some of the same companies that earlier applauded Genachowski’s flexibility;
• Genachowski handed out his direct phone numbers to the CEO’s of the top Big Telecom companies, and has been directly lobbied by those “super-citizens,” while ordinary consumers are stuck filing comments with the FCC’s arcane Electronic Comment Filing System. Genachowski also directed closed-door meetings be held on the subject of Net Neutrality with large telecom companies. These meetings were closed to the public with no consumer representatives on hand;
• Genachowski refused to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service,” which would give the agency clear-cut authority to oversee the service. Instead, he has stuck with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s odd interpretation of broadband as “an information service,” not subject to much review by the agency;
• Appropriately nixed Philip Falcone’s LightSquared venture, the biggest threat to GPS navigation around. But Genachowski’s controversial early boosting of the venture, including support for expedited special permission to launch the network without the usual scrutiny, resulted in an embarrassing about-face after long-standing critics’ fears of navigation interference were vindicated;
• In 2012, Genachowski’s cozy relationship with the industry reached whole new levels with unabashed support for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, despite no evidence justifying them. The FCC has continued to ignore repeated requests for a review of these pricing schemes.

Cadillac prices for some sports networks you pay for whether you watch or not. (Early Summer 2012 – Prices have since risen for some networks)

About 50 percent of your monthly cable television bill covers the cost of live sporting events and the networks that cover them, and the price is not going down anytime soon.

At least $21 of that bill is split between more than 50 national and regional channels covering every imaginable sport.

What customers may not know is that a handful of self-interested giant corporations and major sporting leagues have successfully bid up the price to carry those events using your money.

The Philadelphia Inquirer took a hard look at spiraling sports programming costs last weekend, discovering a lot of cable subscribers are paying for sports programming they will never watch.

“Here is a little old lady who wants to watch CNN,” Ralph Morrow, owner of Catalina Cable TV Co. in Avalon, Calif., a 1,200-subscriber system, told the newspaper. “But I can’t give it to her without $21 a month in sports.”

In the last 20 months, some of the biggest names in sports programming including Comcast/NBC, Fox, ESPN, CBS, and Turner have agreed to collectively pay $72 billion in TV rights to air pro, college, and Olympic events over the next decade. Costs are anticipated to soar to $100 billion or more once those contracts come up for renewal.

To cover the growing expense, the pay television industry’s business model insists that every subscriber must pay for sports networks as part of the “basic package” whether they watch or not. Nothing fuels annual rate increases faster than sports programming, and there is no end in sight.

Many contracts specifically prohibit operators from selling their networks “a-la-carte” or in special “sports tiers” that carry extra monthly fees.  Any additional costs are quickly passed onto subscribers in the form of regular rate hikes.

Charlie Ergen from Dish Networks suggests at the current pace of sports programming rate increases, it won’t be long before subscribers will face cable bills up to $2,000 a year, just to watch television.

If you don’t believe him, consider estimates from NPD Group, which predicts the national average for cable TV bills could reach $200 a month as soon as 2020. That is up from the already-high $86 a month customers pay today, after all costs and surcharges are added up.

It was not always this way. As late as the 1980s, the overwhelming majority of marquee sporting events were televised on “free TV” networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC. For decades, major broadcast networks largely had only themselves and the economics of advertiser supported television to consider when submitting bids to win carriage rights.

With the advent of cable sports networks, supported by dual revenue streams from both advertising and subscriber fees, ESPN eventually amassed a back account large enough to outbid traditional broadband networks. If another network moves in on ESPN’s action, the cable network simply raises the subscription fee charged to every cable subscriber to up the ante.

Broadcasters have enviously watched this dual revenue stream in action for several years now, and have recently insisted they be treated equally. Today, cable operators face demands for similar monthly payments from television stations and their network owners. In effect, customers are paying both sides to outbid one another for sports programming.

Consider ESPN as a case study in sports programming inflation. From 1989-2012, ESPN rates increased 440 percent. Today, every cable subscriber pays at least $5.13 for ESPN alone. In fact, the actual amount is considerably higher, because ESPN has successfully compelled most cable and satellite programmers to also carry (and pay for) several additional ESPN-branded networks also found on your lineup.

But why do cable companies agree to pay astronomical fees for sports networks, only to later alienate customers with annual rate hikes?

First, because customers watch sports. If a cable company does not carry the network showing a game or team a customer wants to see, that company will likely hear about it, either in a complaint call or cancellation.

Second, watching live sporting events is not easy for a cord-cutter. With fewer games appearing consistently on broadcast television, a cord cutting sports fan risks missing the action only available from a pay television provider.

In a defensive move, many cable and satellite companies assume the more live sports a  provider offers, the lower the chance a sports enthusiast will consider canceling service.

Cross-ownership also muddies the water for consumers. Comcast, the largest cable operator in the country, has an obvious self-interest loading its systems up with its own sports programming and compelling customers to pay for it.

Comcast owns about a dozen regional sports networks, NBC, NBC Sports Network and Golf.

Other large cable operators are concluding if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Time Warner Cable found one lucrative reason to own its own sports networks: its ability to charge competing cable and satellite providers sky high prices to carry that programming.

Time Warner is asking fellow cable, telco, and satellite providers to pay $3.95 a month for its SportsNet English and Spanish language networks, which feature the Los Angeles Lakers. For good measure, the same cable company that routinely complains about being forced to pass on mandatory sports programming costs from others insists companies place both of their sports channels on basic lineups, which guarantees every subscriber will also pay the price for two more sports channels, one in Spanish, they may have no interest in watching.

Public Knowledge, a public interest, pro-consumer group, has filed a petition calling on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce conditions imposed on the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger dealing with Comcast’s usage caps policy.

The group wants the FCC to investigate the legality of Comcast’s decision to exempt its own online video service from the usage caps Comcast is reintroducing on its broadband customers:

In evaluating the merger, both the FCC and the Department of Justice recognized that a combined Comcast/NBC-Universal would have an enhanced motive to discriminate against unaffiliated online video services that might compete with Comcast’s pay-TV cable service.  Because Comcast controls their subscribers’ connection to the internet, and subscribers could use that very connection to access video services  not controlled by Comcast, Comcast has the ability to manipulate those internet connections in a way that would disadvantage video competitors.

Specifically, Public Knowledge accuses Comcast of violating FCC condition G.1.a.:

“Neither Comcast nor C-NBCU shall engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or prevent any MVPD or OVD from providing Video Programming online to subscribers or customers.”

The group argues that unfairly applied usage caps impact Comcast’s online video competitors. Customers will choose the service that does not eat away at their monthly broadband usage allowance, making competitors operate on an unfair playing ground.

The group has raised questions about the industry’s movement towards Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles and has repeatedly requested the FCC question how data allowance levels are developed, evaluated, and evolve over time.

Walden

When lawmakers talk about “unleashing” anything for “innovation,” it’s a safe bet we’re about to be treated to an anti-regulatory rant about how government rules are ruining everything for big business.  Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) does not disappoint.

Walden is chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an important place to be if you want to influence telecommunications policy in the United States.  Walden slammed the Federal Communications Commission this morning in an editorial piece in Politico, accusing the agency of regulating communications companies before they have a chance to engage in bad behavior:

Sometimes the FCC acts before thoroughly examining whether regulation is needed. It’s now time to stop putting the regulatory cart before the horse. That’s why this bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace, identify a failure and conduct a cost-benefit analysis before imposing rules.

[…] When the FCC reviews a merger, it now often imposes unrelated conditions. These extraneous agreements may not correspond to any harm presented by the transaction, may not be justified industry-wide and, in some cases, are outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

Such bootstrapping is unfair to the singled-out parties. It also results in poor policy. Imposing extraneous conditions on a transaction that is not otherwise harmful is inappropriate. And if a transaction is harmful, imposing extraneous conditions cannot cure it. Merger conditions should be directly related to transaction-specific harms, and within the FCC’s general authority.

Walden’s concerns coincide with the corporate agendas of some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies he oversees as chairman.  That may not be surprising, considering seven of the top 10 corporate contributors to his campaign fund are all telecommunications companies.

Walden's top campaign contributors (Source: Opensecrets.org)

Walden’s record on “innovation” is open to interpretation.  He is on record opposing Net Neutrality, has sought to “streamline” the FCC by hamstringing its authority, and has favored a variety of mergers and acquisitions that have effectively reduced competition for American consumers.

The FCC’s zeal for increased competition appears occasionally in its rulemakings, although the agency under Chairman Julius Genachowski can hardly be considered aggressive and out of control when it comes to some of the most contentious telecom issues that have arisen during the Obama Administration.  It only followed the Justice Department’s lead opposing the AT&T/T-Mobile USA merger.  It punted on Net Neutrality enforcement, doesn’t oppose Internet Overcharging, and has granted more mergers and acquisitions than it has sought to block.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has not always successfully stared down industry efforts to consolidate and deregulate.

Some examples of “unrelated conditions” the FCC has imposed on mergers include no price hikes for consumers for a limited time (Sirius-XM), a discounted Internet service for poor families (Comcast-NBC Universal), and spinoffs of acquired cellular network assets in barely competitive markets (Verizon Wireless-Alltel).

Sirius-XM mostly kept to their agreement, but promptly raised prices when it expired, Comcast followed the FCC’s agreement to the letter but found ways to limit the number of qualified families, and Verizon Wireless sold some of their acquired Alltel assets to AT&T, which at least provided improved AT&T reception in certain markets they largely ignored earlier.

Consumer advocates would argue the FCC should never have approved these transactions in the first place, and the conditions the FCC imposed were so mild, they faced little opposition from the companies involved. But apparently even that is too much for Walden, who we have a hard time seeing opposing any of these mergers.  Besides, some of the largest companies donating to Walden’s campaign fund are already adept at working around the FCC, suing their way past the regulations they oppose.

Walden advocates the FCC only perform its oversight functions after the industry is proven to have imposed unfair, anti-competitive, and discriminatory policies against consumers, not to act to prevent those abuses in the first place.  In short, he wants the FCC to regulate only after the damage has been done. That would be akin to calling the fire department after your house burned to the ground. Companies would be free to walk away with their ill-gotten gains with little threat the FCC would punish bad behavior and fine the bad actors.

If you are Comcast, that is innovation.  If you are a consumer, it’s something else.