Competition and cultural diversity after the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Focusing on United States cable in the multichannel media marketplace.

摘要

This study explored the consequences of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on competition and cultural diversity in the U.S. cable industry, using a political economy perspective. The implications of the 1996 act were examined through two dimensions—cable's competition with other mediums and the cultural diversity of cable operations. This study focused on cross-media competition of cable with telephone companies and Direct Broadcast Satellite in the multichannel video marketplace.; In investigating diversity, a cultural interpretation of diversity, which comprises the broad idea of fairness in giving access, attention to opposing political views, and greater emphasis on public interest programming, was employed. It was investigated by focusing on the operation and programming of public, educational, and governmental access channels (PEG channels). Also, minority ownership and programming, including the ownership of broadcast media, were examined. While the political economy of communication provided the theoretical perspective, public policy analysis, content analysis, and legal case analysis were also employed in an examination of significant documents pertaining to competition and diversity issues in the cable industry.; This study found the cable industry does not seem to be providing better service at lower prices with more consumer choices since passage of the 1996 act. Deregulation has not minimized the economic market power of the cable industry by fostering real competition among players. Moreover, this study found the cable industry was not promoting free speech and access for the public by providing PEG channels that enlarge the public sphere of debate. Also, deregulation and policy changes drawn by the FCC have erected and heightened anti-competitive market-entry barriers, inhibiting the development of minority ownership in the industry. Based on the analyses, this study concluded that opening markets to the possibility of competition through deregulation does not necessarily mean markets become truly competitive.