Sunday, December 1, 2013
Effect of the Telecommunications Policy of 1996 (due by section meeting Wed.)
Discuss one or more of the major effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on technology, content, or industrial policy. Why do you think the FCC enforced more regulation on content at the same time that they ushered in less regulation on media corporations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the lasting effects of The Telecommunications Acts of 1996 was the implementation of the V-Chip and rating systems. These restrictions required that all television sets sold after January 1999 had a special electronic chip that would allow parents to control content. With this chip, parents were able to block programs with violent or offensive content. It was because of the V-chip that all programs had to be rated (for violent and sexual material), and it was through these ratings that the V-chip was triggered (Hilmes, 379). The rating system and V-chip continue to be used today, though they have less of an impact that was predicted. It was hoped that the V-chip would decrease youth violence and drug use. There is little evidence that the V-chip actually helped and there are many criticisms of the V-chip. Few parents actually take advantage of the V-chip, and it is rather easy for children to override the system and watch whatever they want. I am also skeptical of the connection between watching television and committing acts of violence. I do not know that there is a definitive link, so I am not sure that the V-chip is as useful as planned. Despite all these criticisms, I do think the V-chip had been positive in that it has raised at least a little more awareness of the violent content of certain television shows. I think the V-chip could be more useful if there was a campaign to raise greater awareness of the existence and use of the V-chip. The more that parents are made conscious of the violence, the better prepared they can be to block it from their children if they chose to. Of course some people see the V-chip as an infringement on their rights, they do not believe that the government should have a say in what people watch. The relationship between the government and the media industry is fraught with problems.
ReplyDeleteWhile the FCC was enforcing more regulation on content, they were also decreasing regulation on media corporations. I think that this was done, because the FCC was under intense pressure from parents groups and other similar groups to better control the content on television. If the FCC increased regulations on content, then they risked angering the media corporations that supplied the content. I think that the FCC tried to appease the media corporations by having fewer regulations on them. I believe the FCC was well aware of the delicate balance between the government and media corporations and tried to protect that relationship by decreasing regulations.
While a very relevant impact of this law, focusing on the V-chip distracts from the economic impact of this law. It was a trade somewhat. The corporations wanted more freedom, but the FCC feared that they would use it to put out subversive material. In reality, this was hardly the case. These conglomerates were not looking to put out revolutionary content or corrupt the youth of society. In implementing the V-Chip, the FCC was defending against an "attack" the conglomerates had no intent of launching. While more progressive, and therefore more subversive, content was being put out, this was by no means the major intent of media companies.
DeleteThe conglomerates wanted more control so they could fully utilize the concept of synergy. In the 1980s, shows like "He-Man" and "Transformers" showed how profitable of a concept synergy was. But, both of those shows were only 2 pronged attempts at synergy. Media plays a critical role in synergy. It is the mouth piece, the way the public is made aware of the other arms of the conglomerate. By having access to more channels and more prime time hours, they could advertise more.
The FCC believed that greater control over content would be how to stop an "agenda" of subversive material. However, conglomerates are only interested in money. They don't have a sinister goal, although what they do can be sinister. They got what they wanted by giving in to something that wouldn't affect them in a major way.
The purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was, as stated by Hilmes, to “Liberate the industry, but crack down on content” (378). The goal of the Act was to increase competition in the communication industry by removing the barriers that prevented smaller companies from entering the industry to compete with the larger conglomerates. This was most specifically due to the provisions of the Act that increased ownership caps and allowed cross-ownership. However as a result, single conglomerates gained power and scratched out the competition. The ownership caps allowed companies to expand their ownership of television stations so that they could now reach 35% of the national market and the cross-ownership provisions allowed television stations and cable franchises to be owned by the same company in the top 50 markets. The goal was to allow smaller companies to come in and expand, allowing them to compete, but instead the larger conglomerates increased their stronghold on the industry.
ReplyDeleteThe FCC enforced more regulation on content while loosening regulations on media corporations because of the expansion and convergence of media technologies that was taking place. With the Internet popularity growing wildly and television and radio markets expanding, concern of the government was pointed at protecting the people from the potentially “indecent” minds that now had the opportunity of reaching a much wider audience. The Act itself was a key factor in expanding these markets.