Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Media Convergence as Evolutionary Process Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Convergence Policy and Regulation: A Free Speech Perspective

verfasst von : Shantanu Dey

Erschienen in: Media Convergence Handbook - Vol. 1

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Public policy perspectives and convergence related laws seem to assume that convergent technology is predisposed towards convergent organizations, convergent content, convergent consumer behavior and convergent markets; such a cloud of ‘convergent’ thinking in constructing policy perspectives does seem to naturally create a necessity for countervailing or compensatory regulatory intervention from a Free Speech perspective that privileges public access, plurality and diversity.
However, convergence has lead to the emergence of diversified pockets of content. The inherently disaggregated, divergent structure of the Internet has spawned a ‘democratic culture’. Although concerns about control and power continue to exist in a digital world, it is unlikely that even media conglomerates will find it easy to dominate the media in a convergent world tempered by divergence.
The perspective of cross-media ownership, concentration of ownership and competition laws are historically ordained paradigms that need to be revisited to shape public policy responses with respect to convergence. We prefer a nuanced regulatory approach based on a ‘layered network regulatory model’ that differentially treats the ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ network layers based on the realities of media concentration and the ‘convergence’ experience; and propose an alternative policy of ‘affirmative public ownership’ to articulate ‘voice’ and ‘agency’ on behalf of public values.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel The 2nd Convergence: A Technology Viewpoint
Nächstes Kapitel The Internet’s Impact on Journalistic Quality
Fußnoten
1
In this connection see Bennett and Strange (2008), Caldwell (2006), Doyle (2010) and Vukanovic (2009).
 
2
See Sect. 6.1 on suggestions for structural regulation across vertical layers.
 
3
In this connection see NewsCorp (2012)
 
4
Please discussion of ‘Free Speech’ perspective in Sect. 3.
 
5
According to Ofcom, an externality is said to occur when a transaction between two parties has an impact on a third party, which is not involved and typically does not take it into account.
 
6
See the Public Service Broadcasting Review (Phase I) by Ofcom for a detailed discussion of its approach to market failures in public service broadcasting (Ofcom, 2004).
 
7
‘The greater the diversity of ownership in a particular area, the less chance there is that a single person or group can have an ‘inordinate effect, in a political, editorial, or similar programming sense, on public opinion at the regional level’ (FCC, 1964).
 
8
In this connection see Bagdikian (2004) for a detailed description of how a cartel of five giant media corporations that owned most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States controlled their content.
 
9
See detailed discussion of ‘Convergence Legislative Frameworks’ in Sect. 5.2.
 
10
Cited in Yoo (2009).
 
11
Common law is based on case law and precedent rather than codified law. It is followed in England and most of the Commonwealth of nations (The Robbin Collection, 2010).
 
12
See discussion on the difference between competition in the product market and information market in Sect. 2.2.1 on ‘competition’.
 
13
See Kumar (2012) for a discussion of cultural policy issues that need to be considered in addition to market issues while responding to convergence.
 
14
In this connection also see Sect. 2.2.1 for discussion by Ofcom on ‘private value’ and ‘external value’.
 
15
See (Horwitz, 2004) for a detailed discussion of these two approaches.
 
16
Justice O’Connor’s noting in her Metro Broadcasting (1990, p. 626) dissent.
 
17
We will draw upon the layered organization of networks, and the network layers regulatory model to present our suggestions about ownership regulations from a Free Speech point of view in Sect. 6.
 
18
See Sect. 6.2.1 for our discussion of Blevin’s notion of ‘infrastructural scarcity’ in the context of our suggested regulatory approach.
 
19
The network layers framework has been earlier discussed in Sect. 4.3.
 
20
The issue of ‘access’ is discussed in detail in Sect. 6 on ‘A Suggested Framework’.
 
21
In this connection see de Steel (n.d.)
 
22
In this connection see Swanson (2013)
 
23
The proposal was to revoke a 30-year-old cross-ownership rule that does not allow a company to own one newspaper, two television stations and upto eight radio stations in the same media market.
 
24
See discussion of ‘networks’ in Sect. 4.1.
 
25
Here, ‘network layer’ refers to physical transmission infrastructure—the “roads” upon which traffic is transmitted. The ‘application layer’ refers to platforms like search engines and social networking sites that are themselves (like postal packages) transmitted upon these physical roads.
 
26
In this connection, also see Baxter’s law—‘where the platform (the core monopoly) is subject to regulation but the applications market is not (Farrell, 2003).’
 
27
This layer is identified as such in Van Dijk’s formulation of network layers which we have discussed in Sect. 4.1. The network layers have been detailed here as those of ‘network infrastructure’ and ‘network services’; in contrast, Blevin uses a broader categorization of ‘network-layers’ and ‘application-layers’ to construct his argument.
 
28
This is important in the context of increasing concentration of the Internet. See discussion on this in Sect. 5.4 on post-convergence policy challenges.
 
29
We distinguish between ‘public’ and ‘government’ ownership, although the latter is not necessarily ruled out.
 
30
Malcolm Matson has celebrated the emergence of ‘hundreds if not thousands of examples of what are becoming known as open public access networks (Matson, 2009).’ Yochai Benchler has discussed the possibilities—and advantages—of ‘open wireless’ systems compared to systems of ‘licensed spectrum’ (Benkler, 2012).
 
Literatur
Abrams v. US, 250 US 616 (Supreme Court 1919).
ACMA. (2011). Converged legislative frameworks—International approaches. Occasional paper. Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Alleman, J., & Rappoport, P. (2005). Regulatory failure: Time for a new policy paradigm. Communication & Strategies, 60(4), 107–108.
Bagdikian, B.H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press
Balkin, J. M. (2004). Digital speech and democratic culture. New York University Law Review, 79, 1–58.
Barendt, E. (2005). Freedom of speech (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barron, J. A. (2000). Structural regulation of the media and the diversity rationale. Federal Communications Law Journal, 52(3), Article 8.
Beitz, C. (2009). The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Benkler, Y. (2012). Open wireless vs. Licensed spectrum: Evidence from market adoption. Working paper. Harvard.
Bennett, J., & Strange, N. (2008). The BBC’s second-shift aesthetics: Interactive television, Multi-platform projects and public service content for a digital era. Media International Australia, 126, 106–119.
Blackwell, C. R. (1998). Convergence between telecommunication & other media: How should regulation adapt? Telecommunication Policy, 22(3), 163–170.CrossRef
Blevins, J. (2012). The new scarcity: A first amendment framework for regulating access to digital media platforms. Tennessee Law Review, 79, 353–416.
Caldwell, J. (2006). Critical industrial practice: Branding, repurposing, and the migratory patterns of industrial texts. Television & New Media, 7(2), 99–134.CrossRef
Castells, M. (2011). Communication power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cerf, V. G. (2013, January 28). Why the internet works and how to break it. The Economic Times.
Cuilenburg, J. V. (2003). Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new communication policy paradigm. European Journal of Communication, 18, 181.CrossRef
Doyle, G. (2002). Media ownership: The economics and politics of convergence and concentration. London: Sage.
Doyle, G. (2010). From television to multi-platform. Less from more or more for less? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(4), 1–19.
Dutton, W. H. (2010). Freedom of connection—Freedom of expression: The changing legal and regulatory ecology shaping the internet. Paris: UNESCO’s Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace.
Entman, R. A. (1992). Reconciling economic and non-economic perspectives on media policy: Transcending the ‘marketplace of ideas’. Journal of Communication, 42, 5–19.CrossRef
FCC. (1964). Multiple ownership order, 45 F.C.C. 1476, para 3. FCC.
FCC. (1999). Revised duopoly report, 14 F.C.C.R. 12,903, para.15, 17 Comm.Reg. (P&F) 1. Federal Communications Commission.
Feintuck, M. A. (2006). Media regulation, public interest and the law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRef
Gentzkow, M. A. (2008). Competition and truth in the market for news. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 133–154.CrossRef
Geradin, D., & Kerf, M. (2003). Controlling market power in telecommunications: Antitrust v. sector-specific regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Hitchens, L. (2011). Media regulatory frameworks in the age of broadband: Securing diversity. Journal of Information Policy, 1, 217–240.CrossRef
Horwitz, R. B. (2004). On media concentration and the diversity question. San Diego, CA: University of California.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide. New York, London: New York University Press.
Matson, M. (2009). Disruptive technologies in communications: Observations from an entrepreneur. In R. W.-F. Kunneke (Ed.), The governance of network industries. Institutions, technology and policy in reregulated infrastructures (pp. 193–206). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McPhillips, S. A. (2008). Media convergence and the evolving media business model: An overview and strategic opportunities. The Marketing Review, 8(3), 237–253.CrossRef
Murdock, G. (2000). Digital futures: European television in the age of convergence. In J. Wieten, G. Murdock, & P. Dahlgren (Eds.), Television across Europe: A comparative introduction. London: Sage.
Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2012). A Digital postal platform: Definitions and a roadmap. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Center for Digital Business.
van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Verizon Communications, Inc v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (US Supreme Court 2004).
Vukanovic, Z. (2009). Global paradigm shift. Strategic management of new and digital media in new and digital economics. The International Journal of Media Management, 11(2), 81–90.
Yoo, C. S. (2009). The convergence of broadcasting and telephony: Legal and regulatory implications. Communications & Convergence Review, 1(1), 44–55.
Metadaten
Titel
Convergence Policy and Regulation: A Free Speech Perspective
verfasst von
Shantanu Dey
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch
Media Convergence Handbook - Vol. 1

Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54483-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-642-54484-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54484-2_4