FCC Does A Bit Of Extortion Horse-Trading With Univision On Indecent Programming
from the hmm,-it-smells-like-fish-in-here dept
It's no secret that one of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's pet issues is indecent TV programming, and he's not afraid to use some questionable tactics to try and get what he wants. For instance, he led the FCC to reverse a long-standing position and say that a-la-carte programming was a great idea, which was basically an implied threat to cable operators that if they didn't offer so-called "family tiers" of inoffensive channels, he'd force them to offer it -- since, of course, the FCC doesn't have the power to regulate material on cable channels. Now, the FCC has gotten Univision to agree to pay a $24 million fine for not showing enough educational programming (and, in part, claiming that a soap opera about twin 11-year-old girls qualified as educational). In exchange, the FCC will sign off Univision's $12.3 billion sale to some private-equity companies -- making this look more like enforcement by ransom than anything else. While Martin and his cronies are certainly free to determine their own regulatory priorities (and we're free to disagree with them), things get a little sketchy when he tries to advance them by what could pretty easily be mistaken for extortion. If he thinks indecent programming is a significant issue, that's fair enough. But using it as the basis by which a wide range of largely unrelated regulatory decisions are made is taking things a bit too far. This decision also doesn't bode well for XM and Sirius, who should expect to have to make some concessions on indecency to get their merger through Martin's FCC.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
concessions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's the big deal with bundling anyway?
(prices and channel examples made up for the example).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what's the big deal with bundling anyway?
The big deal with bundling is that, because most cable companies have an effective monopoly on non-broadcast/non-satellite programming in their franchise market, they are in essence, forcing people to buy channels that they do not want, and charging them as if they did want them. The cable companies choose the channels included in each of their bundles based on trying to get us to upgrade to get the few channels in each bundle that appeal to us.
Then they cite all of the channels in each tier/bundle when they make their cases to the local regulators for the continuingly increasing fees they charge for essentially the same service (the same meaning I watch the same channels as I did five years ago, but I’m paying 30% more for it, even though technology should be pushing cable service prices down).
This makes it look like they’re providing lots of new channels (even though most of the new ones are of the QVC variety and of similar value to most of us as QVC), which justifies their raising their prices.
Now, in defense of bundling, there are a lot of channels/programming that wouldn’t see the light of day if they weren’t included in a bundle, because almost no one would pay for them (think the various permutations of C-SPAN, the QVC-type channels, the golf channel, the Outdoor Living Channel, etc.). Some of these are channels most of us might watch for an hour every other month, which most likely means we wouldn’t buy it if it were priced separately, even though we occasionally do watch them and like having them there on those rare occasions when we feel like watching them. Since too few viewers would pay for these channels if they were sold separately, that is programming that would probably not be produced otherwise. This is why I think bundling is not ALL bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are not talking about broadcast media here, we are taking about a point to point transaction, something that is as private as a phone call - oh well, yeah right.
As the line between the internet and broadcast entertainment blur - expect these busybodies to try to control the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, Univision is a cable AND broadcast provider, so FCC does have the ability to regulate it. In most of the country Univision is available via cable, but in a lot of larger hispanic markets, like Miami, LA, NY, etc, Univision is a broadcast network.
Carlo, how come you didn't mention this fact (the dual nature of the Univision affiliates) because your article makes it sound like the FCC has no jurisdiction over Univision at all, when quite clearly it does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sigh, this country is falling to pieces
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a kidvid issue, not decency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC Issue
I think the solution the FCC has given to allow soaps to be educational is all wrong. Now why the FCC has any say about what is on a cable channel is beyond me. If you have cable you should be able to watch whatever you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peaches.
I don't care what their doublespeak name for it is, it's still censorship, and it's still double plus un-good.
Speaking of decency-- if everyone stops saying "shit" and starts says "poop" instead-- wouldn't they, then, have to censor the word "poop"? It's just letters that make up a word that represent an idea, right?
Maybe I over-simplify?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm with comment #10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackmail? Maybe. But otherwise Univision would have been fined even more, and they would have had to appeal the fine in court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV has come a long way from the days of three channels and rabbit ears antennas. Today’s TV audiences are putting to use broadband, DVRs, TV video on demand, iPods and cell phones to greatly expand their choices about what, when, where and how to watch TV. New technology means consumers have more selection than ever and more control than ever over what they see on TV. We all have more choices and parents have more tools to ensure their kids only see what’s right for them. Let’s let parents decide—not government, for all of us.
There is more information to be found at www.televisionwatch.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 hours: easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion
In this case, I think Martin may have taken on more than he counted on. Univision's new owners will pay (even though they're not the ones who committed the "violation" in the first place), but expect them to have long memories.
Hispanics are an increasingly important demographic, politically, and Univision is the #1 opinion-maker in the Hispanic community. Were it me, I would make it very clear to every aspiring President that if he appointed Martin to so much as assistant dog-catcher, there'd be a steady drum-beat of criticism of his administration on Spanish television. Good press is far more valuable than any bureaucrat, so I'd bet Mr. Martin would find himself retired, pronto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]