• PC World
• »Tech Industry

The Internet is Eden for those who like to get news from anywhere from Albania to Zambia at any time. But paradise risks pollution by a gold rush of media companies seeking to control the digital information landscape, some media experts say.

Media companies can now own more newspapers and TV and radio stations than ever, under a recent, controversial ruling by the Federal Communications Commission.

"It eliminated a critical safeguard that protects freedom online," says Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Digital Democracy.

But that shift is a mere ripple in a sea change in the media and telecommunications industries, say digital rights and consumer advocates.

"The media giants of yesterday want to be the media monoliths of tomorrow," Chester says.

Squeezing the Alternatives

Think you'll always be able to post breaking news on your blog and scoop Nightline or The New York Times?

Think again, says Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America.

Many of the companies that produce content have lobbied the government to also own the pipeline that feeds shows and sites to both your TV and your PC. Some of them, such as Comcast, Cablevision, and AOL/Time Warner, already have this dual role. This blurred barrier will eventually sever the delicate, democratic network of ideas online, Cooper says.

"It's passing through a monopoly gateway into a walled garden," he says. Cooper's fear: the ISP that also promotes content will push its own material to the exclusion of others, even noncommercial competitors.

Broadband cable Internet access is now considered an "information service" instead of a telecom service. The FCC made the distinction in a March 2002 ruling that involves providing broadband services through phone lines.

If just a few companies control both the means and the message, it creates a dangerous conflict of interest that could mean disaster for digital diversity, critics say.

The Internet could become like cable television, a pay-as-you-go service with price tags for premium channels, Cooper says. The content and service provider would favor its own content and shut out nonprofit groups and start-up sites. For example, an ISP/content provider's search engine would display its own products first--or exclusively.

Media companies clearly have their eyes on "convergence," blending distribution across print, broadcast, and digital devices. Critics fear this means big media will silence smaller players online as well.

Who's Watching?

The cable industry, for one, denies such motives.

"Cable operators currently provide their subscribers with unfettered access on the Internet, and there's no reason to believe that would ever change," says Brian Dietz, a spokesperson for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

In its recent decision allowing broader media ownership within markets, the FCC did not say it will continue to monitor market activity. The commissioners indicate they believe the free market will take care of itself.

"This is a classic case of a huge pile of money on one side of the table and everyone else on the other side of the earth on the other side of the table," says Robert McChesney, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a critic of the ruling.

The FCC met privately with the heads of major media corporations 71 times this spring about the latest ruling, but only five times with opposition groups, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

The FCC received more than half a million comments about the ruling, with 99 percent of them against it, according to Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner. Some members of Congress are vowing to fight the rule, and 150 of them voiced opposition to it.

Similar Ammunition

Those on both sides of the debate cite the First Amendment and promotion of diverse voices. But they have opposite strategies to protect these ideals.

Opponents of the FCC's stance claim the agency's recent lenient policy has caused media diversity to shrink. FCC first began relaxing ownership monopoly rules seven years ago. But proponents of the practice say more variety exists now than ever.

"Technology has made it so that individuals who seek different viewpoints have them at their fingertips like never before," says Richard Diamond, an FCC spokesperson. "The beauty of the Internet is you can't shut people out...no matter whether you're a one-man operation."

Others contend the new rule doesn't threaten digital news. The Internet resists regulations, they say. Free markets will allow any industry to develop naturally according to the will of the people, Diamond says.

If corporations become more profitable because they can own more media properties, they can better pool their resources and improve programming shared by Web, television, radio, and print media, says Diamond.

But "the Internet is not a magical medium," McChesney notes. "It hasn't spawned any new commercial media to challenge the media giants."

Moving Online

In fact, the big media firms are embracing the Internet as just another domain in their drive for monopoly, critics say.

"The Internet is not going to overthrow existing media as much as incorporate into it, get married into it," McChesney says. Then, information will become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, he warns.

Already, major media companies own the top 20 news sites, from AOL to washingtonpost.com, according to Nielsen/Net Ratings.

"There's always going to be a top 50 or a top 10, but they're not always the same top 10," retorts Benjamin Compaine, a research consultant at MIT's Program on Internet and Telecoms Convergence.

Still, dozens of news sites have died since the dot-com boom, and many survivors were either bought by large companies or are hanging by a thread--and trying new tactics to stay alive.

For example, Salon is dog-paddling by selling a paid premium subscription. Its better-financed rival Slate just began to turn a profit. National Public Radio, exploring distribution on digital media as well as airwaves, is co-producing a show with Slate. But that partnership is controversial because it's the first time NPR has joined with a for-profit entity; in fact, public radio station WBEZ in Chicago has declined to run the show.

Stay Tuned

Commercialization of the Web is not a new topic, of course. But the FCC's hands-off approach to media ownership is fueling the debate among wary Netizens and media watchers. Is top-down domination an accurate vision of how the Web works?

"One can have some dark vision of...one company owning all the ISPs, but by and large, folks find they can do better off these days by having an open system," says MIT's Compaine.

You only need to "look at the blogging world to realize how many independent voices are out there," says Steve Outing, a new media columnist for Editor and Publisher magazine. "I can't imagine big media buying up all the worlds."

Big media may have a "lot of promotional power to extend the Web audience...but it doesn't mean others don't exist as well," Outing says.

• See more like this:
• media,
• federal communications commission,
• fcc,
• regulation,
• regulatory agency,
• isp,
• broadband