Dean says 'bust em up'!

[DoctorDoom]

So I concede. If you all WANT to have a handful of giant corporatons controlling the major sources of information in this country with no accountability -- and with less and less room for competition, then be my guest. ....We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

Who OWNS the media does NOT dictate what is presented thereon. The desires of the audience ALWAYS prevail. The idea that social responsibility must be a factor in broadcasting is simply wrong.

Broadcasting is a business. Stations operate to make a profit, which pays the power bill and the payroll and their program sources and all that other dreary overhead stuff. If a station does NOT make a profit, then it is not a viable business, and it ultimately fails.

The way it makes a profit is by attracting a sufficiently large base of listeners that potential advertizers will find it profitable to place ads on the station. The way the station attracts listeners is to present programming that they want to hear. If the programming does not appeal to them or does not hold their interest, they don't listen, the ratings deep-six and the advertizers go looking for greener pastures.

Nowhere in that process is there there the merest heed paid to the notion that "broadcasting is a voice of our democracy." Everything revolves around market shares and ad rates. All other considerations are at best secondary. If a station does not develop a listener base, it either folds or is bought out by someone with a keener insight into what sells in that particular market.

Head down south and the airwaves are replete with country music. Up north it's all crap that has as much relation to music as does a cat fight. In both cases, the desires of the listeners dictate what is aired (up here in the north, they are tasteless, but I digress).

Stations are NOT in business to address "other obligations" that have nothing at all to do with making a profit. There are numerous avenues of access that can be used by the touchy-feely crowd without forcing broadcast stations to cater to them. Liberals might find that thought appalling, but that's the way it goes in the real world.

[Liberty]

It is old-fashioned corporate corruption and monopoly capitalism combined with the worst aspects of "rigging the system" of regulation.

How much of the market must one own in order to considered a monopoly?

[curious]

Originally posted by Liberty:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is old-fashioned corporate corruption and monopoly capitalism combined with the worst aspects of "rigging the system" of regulation.

How much of the market must one own in order to considered a monopoly? </font>[/quote]Liberty, before I respond, just wanted to mention a show that was on the Travel Channel tonight. "The Top Ten Bathroom in Las Vegas." Honest. I thought that was ironic in light of our earlier exchange.

Technically, I suppose 100 percent is required to be a true monopoly. Two companies would be a duopoly, etc.

But monopolistic power is more subjective. There have been formulas to define that, but it's not necessarily a slide-rule situation. Depends on the nature of the market and the circumstances and the behavior of the company. Whether it has the power and ability to stifle competition and control the market to an artificial degree, and whether its actions are potentially abusive to the public.

Obviously there aren't easy answers. That's why lawyers and other experts get involved.

I would say that monopolistic situations -- or even potential ones -- are not a positive outcome of the "free market" because it defeats the purpose of competative capitalism.

There's anothehr variable, though.

There are also necessary monopolies, because the cost and nature of the product or service only allows for a limited number of participants, or only one. The local end of electric power systems, for example, have been natural monopolies.

Strong regulation is especially important, to ensure that the monopoly operates in the public interest and does not abuse its position.

The broadcast media falls into the realm of a naturaly monopolistic sector because of the limited number of frequencies available, and the nature of cable systems. Those who have the license to these resources do not "own" them. That have been given the privilege of using a public resource. Therefore, although it also serves the interests of its owners, broadcasters also have obligations to also serve the public interest in exchange for profiting from a public asset.

And the monopolistic aspects should be as limited as much as possible, to allow as many otehrs to comopete as is physically possible.

And please don't cry for the poor broadcasters if reasonable regulation is ever restored. They can always make a lot of money. They did when broadcasting was more regulated. They are not pushing this deregulation because they need it to survive. It is merely that they want the whole pie, and ever bigger profits from a public resource, with no responsibilities to anyone but themselves.

Also, the argument that all programming should be driven only by ratings is bunk. If they can get away with it, the broadcasters will show nothing but pure audience grabbers like nude lesbian mudwrestling, or the most violent programming possible, to jack up the audience. They're already coming very close.

Despite what many here seem to think, I don't believe being expected to serve the public interest is a wrongheaded concept for a company that has been granted control over a public resource.

[TXNavy]

Originally posted by curious:


Technically, I suppose 100 percent is required to be a true monopoly. Two companies would be a duopoly, etc.

What happens when we have four or five at least?

But monopolistic power is more subjective. There have been formulas to define that, but it's not necessarily a slide-rule situation.

No, it really is a textbook definition. If this were Italy and 90+% of the media were owned by the man who's also the Prime Minister, you might have a point.

Depends on the nature of the market and the circumstances and the behavior of the company. Whether it has the power and ability to stifle competition and control the market to an artificial degree, and whether its actions are potentially abusive to the public.

But they don't have the ability to control the market. That's been our point the entire time. They're extremely succeptible to market forces, not the other way around. Look at what happened with the Reagans - it wasn't a vast conspiracy, it was the fear of losing market share and a boycott.

Obviously there aren't easy answers. That's why lawyers and other experts get involved.

Then where are the anti-trust suits? Federal and state prosecutors jumped in on Microsoft, which I still believe is a pretty difficult case. And that wasn't even based on current market share - it was based on attributes of their business model and product which edged out software companies making smaller products and gaining market share.

If they can push that through, certainly they could make a case againsnt some media conglomerate that's keeping the little guy out.

I would say that monopolistic situations -- or even potential ones -- are not a positive outcome of the "free market" because it defeats the purpose of competative capitalism.

True - but name a situation that we've gone over that hasn't been an example of the free market at work. You use Donahue - but the reality is that MSNBC has been struggling for market share all along and they feel pinned by their leftist image. They're having to shape themselves to the market, not the other way around.

There are also necessary monopolies, because the cost and nature of the product or service only allows for a limited number of participants, or only one. The local end of electric power systems, for example, have been natural monopolies.

Until recently. California got screwed because of Gray Davis, but deregulation and consumer choice has actually worked pretty well in other places like Texas.

Even the post office's monopoly has been eroding over the last few decades. Our capitalist society erodes nearly all such things with or without federal laws.

The broadcast media falls into the realm of a naturaly monopolistic sector because of the limited number of frequencies available, and the nature of cable systems.

Uh, how many frequences do you think are out there? And how "few" would make it a monopoly? Last I checked, VHF and UHF television alone is nearly 100 channels. And let's not forget how many independent radio stations have been started over broadband internet as of late.

Those who have the license to these resources do not "own" them. That have been given the privilege of using a public resource.

I think you believe in some limitations on the electromagnetic spectrum which don't exist. Even with a finite number of channels under the rules in which we've divided the bandwidth, there's still geographic distance between the stations which make for more than enough room for everyone. Have you ever been in a city where every fifth of a MHz has an FM radio channel on it? Or every television station is occupied? Probably not.

And what about other forms of media? If other opinions of questionable value were being shut out, how come DUh has 35K users?

And please don't cry for the poor broadcasters if reasonable regulation is ever restored. They can always make a lot of money. They did when broadcasting was more regulated. They are not pushing this deregulation because they need it to survive. It is merely that they want the whole pie, and ever bigger profits from a public resource, with no responsibilities to anyone but themselves.

They want it because its archaic and anachronistic. There's more than three media companies out there nowadays, and far more forms of media available to the public. It just doesn't make sense anymore.

Also, the argument that all programming should be driven only by ratings is bunk.

Uh, then who's going to watch it? Isn't this why PBS struggles?

If they can get away with it, the broadcasters will show nothing but pure audience grabbers like nude lesbian mudwrestling, or the most violent programming possible, to jack up the audience. They're already coming very close.

Perhaps - but they'd probably see a market reaction such as what the Reagans generated. More than likely, they'll just conform to a model such as Fox

Despite what many here seem to think, I don't believe being expected to serve the public interest is a wrongheaded concept for a company that has been granted control over a public resource.

If they have "control," then how come there are so many of them in competition?

[curious]

Originally posted by TXNavy:
What happens when we have four or five at least?

I dunno. Quadrapoly?

Monopolistic behavior does not require a virtual monopoly. In general it refers to a situation when one or more companies own so much of the providers in a market that they are able to stifle competition and control the market beyond the normal forces of supply and demand.

No, it really is a textbook definition. If this were Italy and 90+% of the media were owned by the man who's also the Prime Minister, you might have a point.

Italy is a perfect example of the potential of this. Obviously the US is a bigger country, but the same dynamic applies. When media monoolists get too much power, and start to interfere with the politicval process.....

But they don't have the ability to control the market. That's been our point the entire time. They're extremely succeptible to market forces, not the other way around. Look at what happened with the Reagans - it wasn't a vast conspiracy, it was the fear of losing market share and a boycott.

Many responses to that. There are a lot of behind the scenes manipulation that can manipulate markets and give themselves artificial advantage....

For example, monopolies do not only work horizontally, but vertically. When a company has produiction, distribution and periperal support systems, such as other outlets to promote the product of each of their "units." The buzzword "synergy" is just a polite word for rigging and gaining more control over the market.

Fer instance, Time Warner magazines do a lot of reviews and feature articles about entertainment. How do you know that a glowing review of a film is a writer's honest opinion, or just using the magazine to promote a TW movie or the product of anotehr of their units. Is an entertainment story on CNN a real story or just an internbal puff piece for their other divisions? Likewise if they ignore something produced by otehr studios or providers -- are they using their holdings to shut out competitors from publicity?

In television, used to be the major networks were distributors only. They bought rights to show programs from a variety of outside producers, but the producers still owned the showds and subsequernt rights. Now the networks make their own shows, and more and more independent producers are being shut out of the process.

And there's a principle that the fewer competitors there are, there is a shift in the natuire of competition. Instead of concentrating on serving the consumer, the monopolistic competitors focus on rigging the system in their favor through lobbying for political favors, and other ways to increase their combined control and getting a free hand to do whatever they want. They also start to form partnerships and joint ownership with each other.

As for the Reagan movie..THere are alternate explanations of that. There have been reports that CBS was less concernedf about the individuals who protested the movie than they were of offending GOP leadership, at a time when they are trying to lobby Congress to push through media deregulation.

They weren't worried about offending YOU. They didn't want to get on the bad side of the President and the Congressmen they are lobbying to help them rig the system in their favor.

Also in terms of control, look at the example I listed above about Mattell and Viacom. Although the core issues was trivial (a Barbie special) the fact that Viacom basically bullied Mattel into submission using the number of media it owns is an illustration of the excessive power a media owner gets when they control too much of the system.

Then where are the anti-trust suits?...If they can push that through, certainly they could make a case againsnt some media conglomerate that's keeping the little guy out.

That's the question many have been asking for years as these mega-conglomerates were being assembled. These mergers and their behavior need to be scrutinized and questioned and challenged throughout the process, before they become so entrenched that it becomes imporssible to control it.

True - but name a situation that we've gone over that hasn't been an example of the free market at work. You use Donahue - but the reality is that MSNBC has been struggling for market share all along and they feel pinned by their leftist image. They're having to shape themselves to the market, not the other way around.

NBC is owned by GE. How much of tbe decision regarding Donahue stremmed from GE's worries that they didn't want to put their defense industries and other corporate interests in peril by offending the powers that be? How much of it stemmed from the conservative politics of GE? And -- to make matters even more complicated, MSNBC is co-owned by GE and Microsoft. Did Microsoft's business interests (including its legal problems) have anything to do with it?

Maybeee, those didn't matter. Maybe they were not factors involved in the decision to yank him...But it is distrubing that such questions can even arise because of the baroque ties between the various interests of the owners and political interests.

There's also an argument that can be made that the very size of these companies makes real competition and innovation in a market impossible. The behomoths are like dinosaurs because they are bureaucricies with too much at stake to be truly responsive to the market.

It also creates a form of inbreeding.

As I've said before, I think it's a good thing that Fox exists. It took a chance and served a market that was not being served...But in the cumbersome world of media, instead of being equally innovative to compete, the other media look at its success and decide they have to play "me too" instead of looking for otehr markets and creative ways to compete.

Until recently. California got screwed because of Gray Davis, but deregulation and consumer choice has actually worked pretty well in other places like Texas. Even the post office's monopoly has been eroding over the last few decades. Our capitalist society erodes nearly all such things with or without federal laws.

Each industry has its own dynamics, and I agree, as technology or otehr cirmstances arise, the rules have to be changed.

In the case of electricity, the sources of power may vary when deregulated, but the system that actualy owns the wires that go down the street and goes into your home still ultimately has one owner.

But deregulation also has to be handled carefully. In some cases, deregulation can actually lead to a circle that takes us from a regulated monopoly to an unregulated one.

At first deregulation can open markets up and lead to a lot of competitors. But over time, the free market leads to mergers and acquisitions, and the number of competitors declines and forms new big monopolies. Ultimately that can lead to a situation where you're back where you started -- but this time the monopolies have no accountability or regulatory restraints to make sure they serve the public interest.

Uh, how many frequences do you think are out there? And how "few" would make it a monopoly? Last I checked, VHF and UHF television alone is nearly 100 channels. And let's not forget how many independent radio stations have been started over broadband internet as of late....I think you believe in some limitations on the electromagnetic spectrum which don't exist. Even with a finite number of channels under the rules in which we've divided the bandwidth, there's still geographic distance between the stations which make for more than enough room for everyone. Have you ever been in a city where every fifth of a MHz has an FM radio channel on it? Or every television station is occupied? Probably not. And what about other forms of media? If other opinions of questionable value were being shut out, how come DUh has 35K users?......They want it because its archaic and anachronistic. There's more than three media companies out there nowadays, and far more forms of media available to the public. It just doesn't make sense anymore.

Yes technology changes things. But AM, FM and TV frequencies are still limited. They are spaced out and limited to avoid local or distant interference, etc.

And, guess what? Big media has been one of the biggest obstacles and opponents to opening up these new options to more competition and public participation.

For example, there was a movement by the FCC and citizens groups several years ago to increase the number of licensed low-power radio frequencies allocated to communities to allow more people to start low-power stations. Who fought against that? THE SAME BROADCASTERS WHO ALSO WHINE AND CALL FOR DEREGULATION. They claimed it would cause interference. But the real reason is that they want to keep their sandbox clear of new competition. That's hypocritical and anti-competative.

Cable is limited because of the infrastructure involved. So the cable companies are in a position of how to allocate the large number of channels on their systems. And it often has less to do with viewer choice than with backroom deals and money than with offering viewers with options.

Another thing to consider. We're talking about universally available media, especially mass-communication as a basic service.

As for things like the Internet, I agree it opens up a lot of options. But it is still very much a limited niche. It is not technically at a point where it is the same as radio or TV in terms of accessibility or reliability for audio and video. Many people can't afford the kinds of connections you need, or live in areas where it's not available.

In five or ten years, if the Internet infrastructire. technology and its economics make it as universally acessible as broadcast TV and radio, then it would make sense to ease the regulations. But not yet.

If they have "control," then how come there are so many of them in competition?

As the number of owner decreases over all of the media, the appearance of choice may exist, but the actual "competition" is just a facade.