homeIndexpage

Stuart Benjamin and the TV Broadcast Spectrum

by Doug Lung, 12.18.2009



Broadcasters this week pointed to the writings of a Duke University professor recently appointed as an adviser to the FCC as evidence that the commission is stacking the deck against the industry in its move to reclaim broadcast spectrum.

In a 2004 paper titled "Evaluating the FCC's National Television Ownership Cap: What's Bad for Broadcasting Is Good for the Country", Stuart M. Benjamin, who was recently appointed to the FCC as a "distinguished scholar in residence," essentially said that the FCC should use regulations to diminish the value of local broadcast so it would shrivel and its spectrum could be reallocated for other purposes.

The paper goes into more detail, including criticizing TV programming and its impact on the country. Benjamin argued against the "homogenization and pablum" from network broadcasting and outlines what he sees as the reason for a loss of interest in broadcast TV. It is well worth the read.



Benjamin's appointment has attracted attention not only in broadcast trade media, but in the Wall Street Journal and in Congress. It has raised awareness of plans to reallocate broadcast spectrum to wireless companies for broadband services. As a result, I expect more people will be watching for any FCC action that impacts the viability of off-air TV broadcasting and the spectrum it requires.

We saw one such response this week when Rep. Greg Walden, (R-Ore.) commented on Benjamin's call for costly regulations on off-air TV to speed its demise.

"I find it an abomination, I find it offensive," said Walden.

Walden said he would follow up with the FCC to find out why someone with that opinion is being employed, noting that pursuing such a policy would waste the billions recently invested in DTV.

The publicity around Benjamin's appointment has raised concerns about the FCC's course of action regarding broadcast spectrum. Whether it will be enough to counter the efforts to take away this spectrum remains to be seen, but as I see it, the publicity has to help.




SPONSORED LINKS
 
 
 

COMMENTS (3)
01/29/2010
Thought pieces are not necessarily what translate into policy. Benjamin's piece merely puts societal and resource allocation issues into perspective. Any disagreements are allowed and actually help shape the debate. But questioning the hiring of someone with particluar views as Congressman Walden suggests is McCarthyite and demagogic in nature the only true abomination in evidence.

12/18/2009
1. Not all TV programming is vapid, as you put it. 2. For better or worse, DTV is what we have as a vehicle for local news, programs and network fare, whatever that may be. 3. Do tou really want to dismantle broadcasting as we know it and put all media on the internet or make them exclusive to cable or satellite? 4. If you favor dismantling the broadcasting infrastructure, are you in favor of paying for it with taxpayer dollars? I am not; commercial broadcasting is exactly that - commercial. We are advertiser-supported, american enterprises. Let us be. Send Benjamin back to Duke - and he can take Genachowski with him.

12/18/2009
Just what we need... A senator investigating a professor pointing out the widely acknowledged vapidity of broadcast programming which is contrary to the interests of the NAB's lobbyists because of "the billions recently invested in DTV". It seems clear where the motivation for his efforts comes from.

More...     
Leave a Comment:
 
Text Only 2000 characters limit
Enter the word as it is shown in the box below: (Why?)
(case sensitive)
difital
mag
Bookmark and Share