Analysis

[Commentary] On Oct 27, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the FCC would vote as soon as November on a proposal to eliminate the cross-ownership rules and usher in a new era of media monopoly. For the better part of two decades, efforts to gut the rules have been blocked by grassroots groups representing consumers, journalists, and democracy advocates. But Pai is moving quickly in hopes that he can avoid the sort of mass mobilization of citizens that—with an assist from the federal courts—derailed an effort by the Bush administration to overturn the cross-ownership rules. Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps, who writes for the Benton Foundation and now advises Common Cause on media issues, calls Pai’s proposal “a virtual death sentence for local media."

The assault on cross-ownership rules is the ultimate government intervention, as it will clear the way for large corporations to gobble up media outlets, consolidate newsrooms, and diminish competition. The current rules seek to encourage genuine competition and robust debate by supporting a diversity of ownership and—by extension—diverse journalism that offers differing coverage and differing perspectives on the news. Pai’s intervention will diminish competition in communities across the country and benefit monopolistic corporations.

In a ruling seen as a major win for the largest media conglomerates in the country, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal the Main Studio Rule, a 77-year-old regulation that required local television and radio broadcasters to maintain physical studios in the communities they serve. The Oct 24 vote, along party lines, with Republican commissioners supporting repeal, clears the way for major media companies to continue buying up local stations and eliminating positions for journalists, while centralizing programming decisions.

One of the primary arguments made by media companies petitioning the FCC for the repeal was that social media renders local stations an anachronistic requirement of the past. Broadcasters, in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which unleashed a torrent of ad dollars, are increasingly reliant on political advertising. That creates perverse incentives for how the stations engage with well-heeled interest groups seeking to influence the public. As The Intercept has reported, broadcasters routinely lobby aggressively against campaign finance reforms, including a proposal to allow candidates equal access to the airwaves, and even a minor requirement that political advertising disclosures must be posted online.

[Commentary] On their podcasts, our representatives are doing something almost journalistic: They’re moderating discussions with other political figures, interviewing experts on North Korea or monopoly power and staging interactions with the public. Except there are no actual journalists around to ask any pesky questions. The lawmaker podcast boom is just another way that our political news is becoming less accountable to the public and more personality driven. But that’s not the only thing wrong with it. The podcasts are also boring.

If politicians really want to excel at podcasting, maybe they should quit their day jobs. For lawmakers, the podcast is rarely undertaken in the legitimate pursuit of good content but is instead a dull, modern version of constituent outreach. These shows are an attempt to signal that they are listening to us. But that doesn’t mean that we should listen to them.

The Federal Communications Commission is having second thoughts about the auctioned “middle layer” of the planned Citizens Broadband Radio Service at 3550-3700 MHz.

You may remember how this is all supposed to work, with three categories of users. The “Incumbent Access” (IA) users, already in place in the band, will have interference protection from all the others. Least protected are the General Access (GA) users, who will contend in real time with other GA users for whatever GA spectrum is available. In between are the Priority Access (PA) users, who will bid at auction for the privilege of on-demand access (except in IA protection zones).A “Spectrum Access System” (SAS) will assign frequencies to each user on the fly, implementing the various priorities. The SAS is still under development. In the meantime, the FCC is taking another look at the PA auctions.

[Commentary] Artificial intelligence permeates everything at Facebook, the social network’s head of applied machine learning says—and humans are bound to understand Facebook less than ever. The algorithm behind Facebook’s News Feed, a “modular layered cake,” extracts meaning from every post and photo.

In 2014, Sprint tried to buy T-Mobile in a deal that ultimately fell apart under scrutiny by the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission. Regulators at the time concluded that having four major competitors in the cellular space, not three, would do the most to preserve competition and help consumers. Analysts say that a new agreement between the two companies would likely hand the reins to T-Mobile, which overtook Sprint in 2015 as the nation's third-biggest carrier. Given that T-Mobile was behind the push for many of the industry changes we've seen in recent years, it's possible that T-Mobile could do a lot with Sprint if it led the company. But many of the underlying issues — such as what happens to competition in a world of three national providers — remain.

As recently as last week, staff members at the Justice Department were said to be skeptical of a Sprint/T-Mobile deal. One argument you can expect to hear, analysts say, is that building out the next generation of wireless data — known as "5G” — will be fairly expensive and that it would be cheaper for everyone involved if T-Mobile and Sprint could join forces and build a single 5G network rather than build two of them separately. Another argument you might hear is that Sprint, whose business is weakening, simply can't survive alone and that by teaming up with T-Mobile, the combined company could more effectively compete with AT&T and Verizon.

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s constant press attacks carry a worldwide price — they hurt America’s ability to stand for democratic freedoms around the world. “When the president consistently speaks that way, there’s a loss of U.S. influence and credibility on matters of press freedom,” said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Even if Trump can’t really get a network’s broadcast license revoked or libel laws changed, he can still can — and does — undermine American values, both here and abroad, when he attacks the press. And no amount of transparency-by-tweet or backslapping access for reporters can make up for that.

[Commentary] The social-media overlords seem sincere when they describe their high-minded intentions. They talk much less, however, about the money they make from their users’ relinquishment of privacy. The willingness of those who make daily use of Google and social media sites to offer up their likes and dislikes, not to mention the details of their spending habits and internet wanderings, provides these companies with the personal data that is the holy grail of modern advertising. It also gives them an endless stream of free content to put those ads beside. Their users’ endless posts, spats and vacation pics make for the ultimate reality show. At times, social-media feeds are about as authentic as a standard reality show, too.

[Commentary] Rage against the media is political Wagyu for the president’s base. And Trump’s notion of suspending television networks’ licenses — along with his proposal that late-night comedians be subject to the “equal time” rule — is essentially unworkable, given how government regulation of the airwaves actually works. So was it a genuine threat — or just another comment from a president who seemingly thrives on narrative tension simply trying to top himself? “One has to suppose that he’s looking for ways to shock people,” said Russell Baker. “It may go through, or he might probably forget about it,” said the former columnist for The Times. “Is anybody shocked anymore? He’s used it up. It can only last so long.” “What else could he say that he hasn’t already said?” said Bob Schieffer, the broadcasting eminence who formerly anchored “CBS Evening News”. Seen-it-all veterans may take Trump’s recent statements with a few grains of salt. But two former White House officials turned pundits, David Axelrod and Robert Reich, warned of creeping autocracy. And advocacy groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists were moved to point out that such words, issued from the presidential pulpit, can embolden dictators who are more empowered than President Trump to shape or censor coverage.

[Commentary] Frontier's recent revelation that it intends to use fixed wireless to address the rural broadband availability problem using the second phase of the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF-II) program is set on a simple goal: extend broadband to areas where deploying wireline facilities is prohibitive. What’s interesting about Frontier is that other than being a supplier of backhaul, the company is mainly a wireline carrier.

Can it effectively overcome engineering and regulatory challenges to complement rural wireline broadband with wireless? There’s both regulatory and technical challenges. Putting aside these challenges, it's hard to not to see the benefits wireless broadband could bring for rural providers. These telcos can use a complementary approach to address remote areas that are still difficult to address even with CAF-II funding today.