Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
This chapter discusses how the issue of statewide cable franchising in the United States reintroduced us to two actors in communication policymaking that have long been dormant: local municipalities and state legislatures. Moreover, it exemplifies both convergence and deconvergence in American telecommunications policy. Convergence occurred through the 1996 Telecommunications Act that allowed multi-modal competition in cable, telephony, and internet. Deconvergence occurred with the emergence of new policy actors. Separately, neither regulatory convergence nor deconvergence are problematic. Their concurrence, however, has led to a state of what critical political economists call “regulatory capture” and “policy failure.” As a result, the public interest is often left unprotected while the various legislative and regulatory bodies vie for jurisdictional authority over cable television.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Ali, C. (2017). Media localism: The policies of place. Urbana-Champagne: University of Illinois Press.
Anne Arundel County. (2006). Comments of Anne Arundel County and Montgomery County, Maryland MB Docket No. 05-311. Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov.
AT&T. (2006). Comments of AT&T Inc. MB Docket No. 05-311. Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/.
Aufderheide, P. (1999). Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. New York: Guilford Press.
Bar, F., & Sandvig, C. (2008). US communication policy after convergence. Media, Culture and Society,30(4), 531–550. CrossRef
Brodkin, J. (2014, February 12). ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states. Available at: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/.
Comcast. (2006). Comments of Comcast Corp. MB Docket No. 05-311. Available at: https://www.fcc.govCommon.
Common Cause. (2005). The fallout from the 1996 Telecommunications Act: Unintended consequences and lessons learned. Washington, DC: Common Cause. Retrieved from http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/National_050905_Fallout_From_The_Telecommunications_Act_2.pdf.
Dunne, M. (2007). Let my people go (Online): The power of the FCC to preempt state laws That prohibit municipal broadband. Columbia Law Review, 1126–1163.
Fealing, K. H., Sakaimbo, N., Henry, M. McFarlane, D, & Kelley, S. (2009). Statewide video franchising legislation: A comparative study of outcomes in Texas, California and Michigan. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://heartland.org/policy-documents/statewide-video-franchising-legislation-comparative-study-outcomes-texas-california.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2005). Notice of proposed rulemaking MB Docket No. 05-311. Available at: http://www.fcc.gov/.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2007). Report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking MB Docket No. 05-311. Available at: http://www.fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2015). Memorandum opinion and order WC Docket No. 14-115; WC Docket No. 14-116. Available at: https://www.fcc.gov.
Goldfarb, C. B. (2008). Public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access cable television channels: Issues for congress. Congressional Research Service. Available at: http://opencrs.com/document/RL34649/2008-09-05/.
Heaton, B. (2014, Jan. 15). Former FCC leaders caution altering telecom law. Government Technology. Available at: http://www.govtech.com/data/Former-FCC-Leaders-Caution-Altering-Telecom-Law.html.
Horwitz, R. (1989). The irony of regulatory reform: The deregulation of American telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.
IBIS World. (2016). Cable Providers in the US Market Research. Retrieved from http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=2011.
Kentucky. (2006). KRS 136.660: Prohibitions—Local franchise fee or tax defined. Available at: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/chapter.aspx?id=37644.
Kruger, L. & Gilroy, A. (2016). Municipal broadband: Background and policy debate. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44080.pdf.
Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (2011). Media regulation: Governance and the interest of citizens and consumers. Los Angeles: Sage.
Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. New York: PublicAffairs.
McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Megdel, S. B. (1995). The benefits of state regulation. In American regulatory federalism & Telecommunications infrastructure, (pp. 85–94). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller & Van Eaton. (2007). Stable cable franchise laws at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent?page_name=LEGISLATIVE%20FEATURE:%20State%20Page.
Mosco, V. (2009). The Political Economy of Communication. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd. CrossRef
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014). Statewide Video Franchising Statutes. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/statewide-video-franchising-statutes.aspx.
National Organization of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA). (2006). Comments of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors et al. MB Docket No. 05-311. Available at: http://www.fcc.gov/.
O’Boyle, T., & Mitchell, C. (2013). The Empire Lobbies Back: How Big Cable Killed Competition in North Carolina. Institute for Local Self Reliance. Retrieved from https://ilsr.org/killing-competition-nc/.
Pikeville. (2010). Comments of Pikeville, KY GN Docket No. 10-25. Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov.
Parker, J. G. (2011). Statewide cable franchising: Expand nationwide or cut the cord? Federal Communications Law Journal,64(1), 199–222.
Pickard, V. (2007). Telecommunications Act of 1996. In T. M. Schaefer & T. A. Birkland (Eds.), The encyclopedia of media and politics (p. 280). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Pickard, V. (2015). The return of the nervous liberals: Market fundamentalism, policy failure, and recurring journalism crises. The Communication Review, 18(2), 82–97.
Rushnak, L. A. (2006). Cable television franchise agreements: Is local, state or federal regulation preferable? Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal,33(1), 41–106.
Santorelli, M. (2007). Rationalizing the municipal broadband debate. I/S: A Journal of LA Wand Policy, 3(1), 43-82.
Sterling, C. H., Bernt, P. W., & Weiss, M. B. H. (2006). Shaping american telecommunications: A history of technology, policy, and economics. Mahwah, N.J: Routledge.
Teske, P. E. (1995). Introduction and Overview. In Paul Teske (Ed.), American regulatory federalism & telecommunications infrastructure (pp. 3–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Teske, P., & Bhattacharya, M. (1995). State government actors beyond the regulators. In American Regulatory (Ed.), Federalism & telecommunications infrastructure (pp. 67–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Texas. (2005). Util. Code Ann 66.003. Public Utility Regulatory Act. Retrieved from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/UT/htm/UT.66.htm.
United States (US). (1984). Cable communications policy act of 1984. U.S. Code, 47, 531–559. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
———. (1996). Telecommunications act of 1996. Pub. LA. No. 104–104, 110 Stat.56.
Verizon. (2006). Comments of Verizon MB Docket No. 05-311. Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/.
Vermont (2005). Cable Television Systems. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit 30, chpt. 13, §501.
Vick, D. W. (2006). Regulatory convergence? Legal Studies,26(1), 26–64. CrossRef
Waldman, S. (2011). The information needs of communities: The changing media landscape in a broadband age. FCC. Available at: www.fcc.gov/infoneedsreport.
White House. (2015, Jan. 13). Broadband that works: Promoting competition & local choice in next-generation connectivity. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/13/fact-sheet-broadband-works-promoting-competition-local-choice-next-gener.
- Regulatory (de) Convergence: Localism, Federalism, and Nationalism in American Telecommunications Policy
- Chapter 14
Die Corporate Supply Strategy bei Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG/© [M] michalchm89 | Fotolia