|
House Overwhelmingly Sends Message To FCC
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Holy Moly! 400-21 vote?!? Talk about true bipartisanship! What an excellent message sent. Bush had better watch his "veto" rhetoric on this one - it could only hurt him.
| quote: | House Votes, 400-21, to Block Media Rule by the F.C.C.
The Associated Press
Wednesday 23 July 2003
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to prevent federal regulators from letting individual broadcast companies own television stations serving nearly half the national TV market, ignoring the preferences of its own Republican leaders and a Bush administration veto threat.
By a 400-21 vote, lawmakers approved a spending bill with language blocking a Federal Communications Commission decision to let companies own TV stations serving up to 45 percent of the country's viewers. The current ceiling is 35 percent.
Despite GOP control of the White House, Congress and the FCC, the House vote set the stage for what may ultimately be an unraveling of a regulatory policy that the party strongly favors. The fight now moves to the Senate, where several lawmakers of both parties want to include a similar provision in their version of the bill.
Top Republicans are hoping that, with leverage from the threat of a first-ever veto by President Bush, the final House-Senate compromise bill later this year will drop the provision thwarting the FCC.
In a show of defiance, FCC Chairman Michael Powell issued a written statement before the vote defending the commission's decision. The five-member FCC approved the new rules on a 3-2 party-line vote on June 2.
``We are confident in our decision,'' Powell said. ``We created enforceable rules that reflect the realities of today's media marketplace. The rules will benefit Americans by protecting localism, competition and diversity.''
A statement by NBC lobbyist Bob Okun praised the FCC decision as ``a positive and much needed step offering regulatory relief to free, over-the-air television,'' and called the legislation ``extremely disappointing to us.''
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chief sponsor of the provision that would derail the liberalized FCC rules, acknowledged in an interview that a tough fight lay ahead over keeping the language intact in the bill's final version. But he declared victory, for now.
``It's extremely rare to be able to reverse a regulatory decision that gives away the store to the big boys,'' Obey said.
With programming power and many billions of dollars at stake, the battle has pitted the big broadcast networks against smaller station owners and an array of groups, from the Christian Coalition to the Consumers Union.
``We've been facing a total roadblock on doing anything in the House,'' said Gene Kimmelman, public policy director for the consumer union. He said the House vote meant ``that roadblock will be torn apart.''
The biggest beneficiaries of the FCC ruling would be Viacom Inc., which owns the CBS and UPN networks, and News Corp., owner of Fox. Due to mergers and acquisitions, both already exceed the 35 percent limit.
Opponents of the FCC decision said it would give giant broadcast corporations too much clout, at the expense of communities and a diversity of voices.
Supporters of the FCC rule said the older, tighter limits ignore a high-tech era in which cable and satellite TV, plus the Internet, have intensified the competition they face. And they said that with even the largest networks owning less than 3 percent of the nation's 1,300 broadcast stations, the clout of the networks was being exaggerated.
Even so, short of support and eager to prevent FCC opponents from using a House roll call to show their strength, GOP leaders didn't even try removing the language from the bill. Instead, they said they would seek to kill it when House-Senate bargainers craft a compromise bill later this year.
Hoping to increase their power, some Republicans were seeking House members' signatures for a letter pledging to vote to sustain a veto, GOP aides said. It would take 145 lawmakers, or one-third of the House, to uphold a veto, which would be President Bush's first.
Some senators may try including similar language in the Senate version of the bill, which may not be written until the fall.
The provision was included last week in a $37.9 billion measure financing the departments of Commerce, State and Justice next year.
On Tuesday, a White House budget office statement said the new FCC rules ``more accurately reflect the changing media landscape and the current state of network station ownership, while still guarding against undue concentration in the marketplace.''
The budget office threatened a veto if ``this provision or a provision like it with respect to any one of the other FCC rules'' is sent to Bush.
On a different issue, lawmakers rejected another amendment by 273-152 that would bar the federal government from interfering with 10 states that allow the medical use of marijuana.
On Tuesday, the House by 309-118 included another amendment blocking the government from performing ``sneak and peek'' searches under the USA Patriot Act. That law, enacted after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, allowed such searches without the property owner's or resident's knowledge with warrants that are delivered afterward.
The House bill affected only part of the FCC's decision.
By 254-174, the chamber rejected an amendment by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., to kill the entire FCC ruling, which he said would impede local media control. The June 2 ruling also would make it easier for companies to own newspapers and broadcast stations in the same community, and to own more than one broadcast outlet in a market.
|
|
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| This is excellent news!!! that FCC bill was truely frightning!!:nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| occrider |
Bush's veto won't have any effect with such bipartisan support. The house can override his veto with a 2/3 vote.
Edit: Oops hehe the article says as much. |
|
|
| daffodil |
| i couldn't be happier! i used to think the media was scraping bottom, but then i realized it could go even lower with those new regulations, or rather permissions. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| While I agree with all of you I think this issue is way overblown. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
400 to 21 ???
Ouch. Well, at least those greedy corporate s have been denied more money!!:D :D |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Thought I should resurrect this thread with an update:
| quote: | washingtonpost.com
Lawmakers Defy Bush on Media Rules
Negotiators Back Move to Stop FCC From Easing Ownership Limits
By Eric Pianin and Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 20, 2003; Page A01
House and Senate negotiators last night defied a White House veto threat and agreed to a provision that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from loosening rules on ownership of multiple media outlets.
With little discussion, the lawmakers tentatively included the measure in a huge, evolving spending package needed to fund agencies and programs in areas where the House and Senate could not reach final agreement.
The decision is a setback for President Bush, who has strongly endorsed the rule change. The plan, drafted by FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell, would have allowed a company to own television stations that could reach almost half the viewing public in a given area.
The House-Senate negotiators, however, could not resolve another major dispute between Congress and the White House, this one over the administration's bid to change the nation's policies on overtime pay. The House last month reversed course and joined the Senate Appropriations Committee in opposing White House efforts to make it easier for employers to exempt many higher-paid workers from overtime pay. The action marked a significant victory for Democrats and labor leaders, who said the administration's plan would deny overtime benefits to millions of employees when they work more than 40 hours a week.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) are trying to use the $284 billion "omnibus spending" bill to reverse Congress's position on overtime, as Bush has urged them to do.
"The president said he would veto the bill over that . . . [and] the speaker doesn't think it's useful for us to send legislation to the president to veto," said John Feehery, Hastert's spokesman.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the issue, are resisting pressure from House leaders and the White House to drop the overtime provision.
Yesterday's setback for Bush on the FCC matter was tempered by assurances from House and Senate GOP leaders that a provision to establish a D.C. school voucher program would be retained in the spending bill's final version, even though the Senate blocked it Sept. 30.
White House lobbyists have called the voucher initiative a top priority.
The District's $5.6 billion 2004 budget has been stalled over the voucher issue, which passed the House by a single vote before a Senate filibuster derailed it.
A House Appropriations Committee aide described last night's decision on the FCC ruling, and the anticipated approval of the school voucher program, as "one setback for the administration and one major victory."
Congress's leaders enjoy substantial leeway in making last-minute changes to bills and policies because lawmakers are about to adjourn for the year and must roll huge amounts of unfinished business and spending decisions into one bill. The omnibus spending bill is ideal for their purposes. When top leaders finish tinkering and send the bill for final House and Senate approval, individual items cannot be removed, and rank-and-file legislators feel they have no choice but to pass the entire measure to avoid missing out on big spending projects for their districts.
Last night, the negotiators agreed to kill an amendment by Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) that would have prevented California from imposing tight air-pollution controls on lawn mowers and other small engines. Environmentalists said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had called some lawmakers to urge them to delete the Bond amendment.
House leaders will also try to use the spending package to overturn a new federal meat-labeling requirement -- even though the House and Senate never agreed on the issue -- and to pass legislation helpful to tobacco growers that could not be passed on its own.
The tobacco bill, which would give billions of dollars to hard-pressed farmers and holders of government "quotas" to sell tobacco, was initially proposed as part of a plan that also would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. It was generally agreed in Congress that neither bill could pass alone but that both might pass together.
After efforts to craft an FDA regulation bill faltered in a Senate committee, however, some legislators -- led by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) -- began to work quietly to add the grower-buyout proposal to the omnibus spending bill during House-Senate negotiations. It would provide $7.2 billion to tobacco growers and quota holders through the Commodity Credit Corp. Cigarette manufacturers would have to pay the money back.
"This is the last train to leave town in terms of trying to do a buyout this session, which is desperately needed by our tobacco growers," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.).
The FCC plan backed by Bush and Powell would let companies own television stations watched by 45 percent of a region's viewers, up from a 35 percent ceiling. The White House has threatened to veto the spending bill unless Congress removes the language dealing with the FCC and overtime rules.
The FCC's media ownership rules, passed in June, have faced significant public and legislative criticism from those concerned about media influence being concentrated in a few companies' hands.
The rules were blocked from going into effect in September by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia, which ruled that they may be harmful to the public interest.
In July, the House passed a spending bill with a rider that allotted no funding for the FCC to implement the new 45 percent cap. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) added a similar rider to the Senate's version of the bill in September.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., who met with GOP leaders on Capitol Hill yesterday, said he was generally pleased with the progress being made on the spending bill, although some House Republicans said the Senate has badly slowed the process. "The sausage machine is still churning around," Card said. "We've given them all the right ingredients, and I'm sure the product that comes out will be delicious."
Some lawmakers are angry at the leadership tactics.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chief sponsor of an amendment to block Bush's planned changes in the overtime laws, told reporters yesterday: "We have the sorry spectacle of the House leadership defying the clear will of the House, which voted to support my amendment.
"This is the height of arrogance: that a handful of ideologues in the House leadership is attempting to veto the clear will of this Congress and the American public."
Staff writers Frank Ahrens, Spencer S. Hsu and Christopher Lee contributed to this report.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Nov19.html |
Bush had better just let this one go. This could truly bite him in the ass if he decides to veto. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
This is interesing, and I thing I agree with the congresses decision on this matter.
On a slightly related story I was chatting with the CEO of SBC (SouthWestern Bell Communications - a fortune 30 company, pretty pimp huh? :D) the other day and he was eagerly in pursuit of an approach of what to due with their landline market which is very heavily regulated by the Feds. Under the new regulations, they basically have to offer their competitors access to their infrastructure for 50% of the cost SBC charges its customers. On such a high precentage SBC is actually losing money by providing this "public good" yet recieving no compensation for it. In addition its competitors get to chose the cream of the crop customers while SBC is forced to provide services for all, meaning even those unprofitable clients.
Of course because of this SBC has absolutely no incentive to invest in infrastructure as it is a losing venture and obligates it to more responsibilities.
The CEO was in pursuit of trying to find a unique business model that would fit this scenario into a profitable venture. I told him straight out he won't find one, there are three options:
(1) Sell it (which he retored, but who would buy it? And he's correct, nobody would buy it probably for more then 10cents on the dollar) - this would of course also cut their lease on the competition.
(2) Invest in R&D to reduce their cost of mantaining the infrastructure (so they can actually afford the 50% stake and be profitable) - to which he responded they are pouring a lot of money into.
(3) Endure - The companies that use SBC's infastructure and providing their own services through it are having horrible problems and customers are flocking back to SBC. He told me 2/3 of customers who used their competitors have returned.
I believe the third one is his only option - he's fighting a price war basically right now and he has to eliminate his competitors this way, only once it is over can their be real profits to this problem.
It was interesting though to hear from him, as it does seem in this case government regulation is overly severe and completely ineffectual - it is hurting both corporation and the public in the long run. I believe a more clever idea would be to intice competitors to setup their own infastructure via subsudies payed through the phone taxes. This way you also have redundant systems at place. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Ouch. Well, at least those greedy corporate s have been denied more money!!:D :D |
oh please, they'll just layoff people so they could keep their multimillion salary. either way this is a good idea :D |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
This is interesing, and I thing I agree with the congresses decision on this matter.
On a slightly related story I was chatting with the CEO of SBC (SouthWestern Bell Communications - a fortune 30 company, pretty pimp huh? :D) the other day and he was eagerly in pursuit of an approach of what to due with their landline market which is very heavily regulated by the Feds. Under the new regulations, they basically have to offer their competitors access to their infrastructure for 50% of the cost SBC charges its customers. On such a high precentage SBC is actually losing money by providing this "public good" yet recieving no compensation for it. In addition its competitors get to chose the cream of the crop customers while SBC is forced to provide services for all, meaning even those unprofitable clients.
Of course because of this SBC has absolutely no incentive to invest in infrastructure as it is a losing venture and obligates it to more responsibilities.
The CEO was in pursuit of trying to find a unique business model that would fit this scenario into a profitable venture. I told him straight out he won't find one, there are three options:
(1) Sell it (which he retored, but who would buy it? And he's correct, nobody would buy it probably for more then 10cents on the dollar) - this would of course also cut their lease on the competition.
(2) Invest in R&D to reduce their cost of mantaining the infrastructure (so they can actually afford the 50% stake and be profitable) - to which he responded they are pouring a lot of money into.
(3) Endure - The companies that use SBC's infastructure and providing their own services through it are having horrible problems and customers are flocking back to SBC. He told me 2/3 of customers who used their competitors have returned.
I believe the third one is his only option - he's fighting a price war basically right now and he has to eliminate his competitors this way, only once it is over can their be real profits to this problem.
It was interesting though to hear from him, as it does seem in this case government regulation is overly severe and completely ineffectual - it is hurting both corporation and the public in the long run. I believe a more clever idea would be to intice competitors to setup their own infastructure via subsudies payed through the phone taxes. This way you also have redundant systems at place. |
Interesting conversation. We personally had SBC for our phone service for a number of years, but got completely sick of the price of the bills. What the hell are all those extra charges anyway? I spoke to a number of phone reps. and their managers one day, and they couldn't even tell me what a couple of them meant! Oh sure, they could tell me what they are, but how they came about and who benefits from them they couldn't say, or wouldn't say. So we switched to a local company, and there's none of those extra surcharges. Plus the basic service rate is much cheaper, and SWB simply can't beat it, no matter how many hundreds of mailings they give out to us (it has literally been near a hundred crap mails).
Sorry about his bad luck. Somehow, I don't think he's losing too much sleep on that particular area. Like you said, option 3 - enduring, will likely and eventually put him back in the +$ soon. Kinda the nature of giant corporations, so it seems - they can eventually outlast smaller corps.
Besides, I'm sure he's doing what Sprint is doing here in KC to offset the costs - outsource. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| :stongue: :stongue: Just be thankful you don't have Verizon, gotta love their lets bundle everything into packages and tell the consumer they are getting a good deal-for whom might I ask. I often look at the telephone bill and wonder what the hell some of those charges truly are. |
|
|
|
|
