Effects of Recent Developments on the TELCO/CATV Cross-Ownership Prohibitions, The

Because of the players\u27 financial stake and the public\u27s interest in cable television, decisions affecting the cross-ownership restrictions probably will be made in one or more forums. This Comment analyzes the cable television market and the effects of telco entry on the CATV industry. It attempts to aid the various forums in considering the effectiveness and necessity of the laws on this crucial issue. First, however, it is important to understand the origins of the cross-ownership prohibitions, current developments in the forums hearing the arguments, and the status of the cable and telecommunications markets

FCC minority broadcast ownership policies-- a critical race theory analysis of judicial assumptions in court decisions : the convergence of race and law

This dissertation used critical race theory as a basis to probe legal and regulatory transitions in the area of minority ownership and their implications for marketplace diversity and public interest. Through the examination of judicial decisions involving minority broadcast ownership this dissertation analyzed the expressed or implied assumptions of the judiciary in reaching those decisions, provided a critical analysis of those assumptions, discussed the implications and results of those assumptions on minority broadcast ownership, and suggested approaches to promote diversity and minority ownership in a deregulated media environment. Both primary and secondary authorities were integral to this research. Overall, analysis took place in three parts. First, there was a collection of United States district court, appellate court, and Supreme Court cases in the area of minority ownership and minority ownership policies promoted by the FCC. Second, analysis of cases consisted of reviewing majority and dissenting opinions. Placing majority and dissenting opinions in the framework of critical race theory, the study continued with determining the judicial rationales and arguments

FCC minority broadcast ownership policies-- a critical race theory analysis of judicial assumptions in court decisions : the convergence of race and law

This dissertation used critical race theory as a basis to probe legal and regulatory transitions in the area of minority ownership and their implications for marketplace diversity and public interest. Through the examination of judicial decisions involving minority broadcast ownership this dissertation analyzed the expressed or implied assumptions of the judiciary in reaching those decisions, provided a critical analysis of those assumptions, discussed the implications and results of those assumptions on minority broadcast ownership, and suggested approaches to promote diversity and minority ownership in a deregulated media environment. Both primary and secondary authorities were integral to this research. Overall, analysis took place in three parts. First, there was a collection of United States district court, appellate court, and Supreme Court cases in the area of minority ownership and minority ownership policies promoted by the FCC. Second, analysis of cases consisted of reviewing majority and dissenting opinions. Placing majority and dissenting opinions in the framework of critical race theory, the study continued with determining the judicial rationales and arguments

A fight for survival : LPTV in Tennessee

This study was designed to shed light on the little known low power television industry in Tennessee. A total of 56 LPTV stations were identified in Tennessee and border areas, using FCC sources and trade directories. A telephone survey was composed and interviews were completed with the owners and/or managers of 42 stations for a response rate of 75 percent.The study documents how the FCC\u27s allotment of new digital television frequencies is displacing Tennessee LPTVs. The survey shows 47 percent of the state\u27s LPTV stations will be forced to relocate to other channels. A majority of owners estimate.the cost of displacement will range from $25,000 to$100,000. A strong majority of owners, 81 percent, favor Class A status as proposed by the Community Broadcasters Association.Among other major findings, about half the station owners were headquartered in the same market, an important benchmark to watch in future studies. Thirty-eight percent ofTennessee stations provided some kind of local programming, a surprisingly low number when compared to previous national studies. Local programming was a prominent characteristic of stations that achieved cable carriage, which can substantially increase astation\u27s viewer base. But only 39 percent of stations were carried on cable,,perhaps as a consequence of the low level of local programming. In national studies, the LPTV carriage rate has been reported as high as 63 percent. LPTVs in Tennessee that produced a local newscast enjoyed a high cable carriage rate of 85 percent.The financial health of the state\u27s LTPV industry appears uncertain. Seventy-five percent of the stations reported annual revenues were less than $50,000 last year. Of the 37stations that identified themselves as commercial, 32 percent reported making a profit last quarter. Thirty-five percent reported they had not earned a profit. The rest did not give an answer. About a third of the stations reported revenues were up last year. A slightly smaller percentage said revenues were either flat or decreasing. Again, the rest did not answer. A Total of 190 people either work full, part-time, or volunteer in the total number of stations surveyed

Spectrum Policy Reform and the Next Frontier of Property Rights

The scarcity of wireless spectrum reflects a costly failure of regulation. In practice, large swaths of spectrum are vastly underused or used for low value activities, but the regulatory system prevents innovative users from gaining access to such spectrum through marketplace transactions. In calling for the propertyzing of swaths of spectrum as a replacement for the current command-and-control system, many scholars have wrongfully assumed the simplicity of how such a regime would work in practice. In short, many scholars suggest that spectrum property rights can easily borrow key principles from trespass law, reasoning that since property rights work well for land, they can work well for spectrum rights as well. But as we explain, spectrum is not the same as land, and a poorly designed property rights regime for spectrum might even be worse than the legacy model of spectrum regulation. This Article addresses three central questions that confront the design and implementation of property rights in spectrum. First, it suggests how policymakers must develop a set of rights and remedies around spectrum property rights that reflect the fact that radio signals defy boundaries and can propagate in unpredictable ways. In particular, if policymakers simply created rights in spectrum and enforced them like rights in land (i.e., with injunctions for trespass), they would invite strategic behavior: spectrum speculators would buy licenses for the sole purpose of suing other licensees when their transmission systems created interference outside the permissible boundary (i.e., act as spectrum trolls). Second, it rejects the suggestion that policymakers establish a unitary property right for spectrum, arguing that policymakers should zone the spectrum by establishing different levels of protection against interference (i.e., an ability to transmit signals with more latitude) in different frequency bands. Finally, this Article discusses what institutional strategy will best facilitate the development of the property right and its enforcement, concluding that an administrative agency - be it a new one or a reformed FCC - is better positioned than a court to develop and enforce the rules governing the use of spectrum so as to facilitate technological progress and prevent parties with antiquated equipment from objecting to more efficient uses of spectrum

The Public Interest Standard: The Search for the Holy Grail

During the last eighty years, there is likely no single area of communications policy that has generated as much scholarly discourse, judicial analysis, and political debate as has the simple directive to regulate in the public interest. While remaining at the heart of current communications regulatory policy debate, the public interest standard has been subject to evolving, and often elusive definitions that reflect the change in American culture from generation to generation. As broadcasters begin the transition to a more flexible digital technology, there have been calls for a reexamination of the public interest standard. But the genius of the public interest standard is its breadth and flexibility, and the advent of digital television should not be an occasion for increasing public interest requirements. If anything, the development of new technologies justifies greater reliance on broadcasters and the market to ensure service to the public