Independent Media in the Digital Age

Brian Drolet and Eric Galatas

(Free Speech TV)

In theory, the public airways belong to the public. It doesn't quite work that way. In the United States, as in most "free democracies", the public airwaves, as well as the public streets are sold off to the private sector for a pittance. In this happy utopia of Adam Smith, the greatest good of corporate capital will create the greatest good possible for the society as a whole.

The argument is persuasive:

The government administers the airwaves for the people. The government invites private capitalists to risk their capital to develop the technical and broadcast infrastructure. The government, ever guardians of the public interest, regulates corporate use of the airwaves, insuring that in their profit making compensation for risk, they don't forget to serve the people-and provide for a diversity of viewpoints that mirrors the diversity of democracy.

So in the world of broadcast television in the U.S. we have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) which provide national programming and a network of local "public" broadcasting stations. We also have National Public Radio, Public Radio Internatioonal, national public interest programming networks, and a large number of listner supported community radio stations that also receive support from the corporation for public broadcasting.

In the world of cable television, where the medium is wire laid beneath the public streets, the government has forced provisions of similar "public access" on the cable providers and programmers.

But in fact, public broadcast and pulic access cable stations are inevitably corporatized or maginalized. They either bend under the baton of "corporate sponsorship" or freeze from the fig leaf of public support.

But what if we are digitized? Will the digital revolution finally make real the dream of many independent media activists and supporters? Hope, it seems, springs eternal. In the coming 500 channel digital future, what will change, and what will remain the same, is a matter of much speculation. Looking back at the past promises of cable television, the invention of radio, and even the early colonial press, it's easy to be less than optimistic about where all this digital conversion is taking us.

The argument that a "free press" is essential to a "free society" was constructed in the energetic days of pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence Thomas Jefferson's quote that "Information is the currency of democracy." Only strong and independent media organizations, he reasoned, can tell us how those with power are using it. And only if we are informed can we protect ourselves from abuses of power. But what happens when media is owned by the powerful? Which of course it almost always is.

When Ben Bagdikian, an editor for the Washington Post during the Watergate years, wrote his groundbreaking work, The Media Monopoly, 50 multi-national conglomerates dominated all print, broadcast and entertainment media. Bagdikian's most recent edition was published just over a year ago. The count has now dropped to 9 owning corporations.

But media and democracy advocates again see a sliver lining in the march of technology and the government's role as guardian of the public interest.

In 1992 the United States Congress passed the Federal Cable Act. In a little publicized provision, Congress said that since Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) operators were using the publicꊻ airwaves, they had to do more than just make money hand over fist. Specifically, DBS operators were informed that they would have to meet public interest obligations, to provide viewers access to programming that is independent, socially conscious, and culturally diverse. Congress then left it to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to decide just how this should all take place. This is the same process that has guided public access in broadcast television and cable.

After six years, and sustained activist efforts, the FCC finally presented its solution. According to new FCC rules, released in November of 1998, DBS operators are now required to set aside 4% of their channel capacity for non-commercial educational, and informational programmers. And they have until December of 1999 to get these new channels on the air.

DBS channels are the sort that are available through those small, pizza-size dishes, A lot of people have them, and a lot of people are getting them. Some DBS services boast over 300 channels, so 4% is not a bad haul for public interest advocates. EchoStar's Dish Network, for example, will likely have to give away 12 channels to qualified applicants. Direct TV, with the largest subscriber base of 6 million households, has over 210 channels, set aside 9 channels in the first round.

So does this mean that the public will finally have access to truly independent perspectives in film and video?

One hotly contested aspect of the FCC ruling gives DBS operators themselves the final say in who will get a channel and who will not. Free Speech TV (formerly the 90's Channel), which regularly champions experimental films and other independent works taking on tough subjects like corporate crime, the environment, gay and lesbian issues, and human rights, lost out in the bidding for a Direct TV satellite channel to conservative and religious programmers. Of the nine channels awarded, three went groups that already have ample outlet on cable or broadcast tv (PBS, NASA and CSPAN) and three religious organizations.

But many players in the race for new DBS channels are relative newcomers to digital television. Eligibility requirements for a channel are fairly broad. All nonprofits with an "educational mission," and even for-profit institutions of higher learning, such as some universities, could apply for and receive a channel. The FCC decided not to regulate most of the specific terms and conditions, but the FCC did set out principles on pricing that are designed to keep costs low for the programmers.

However, cost is still a significant barrier to accessing DBS spectrum. What is low price and what is high price, in market terms, may surprise some independents interested in applying for their own channel. Free Speech TV is estimating that it will have to spend at least $180,000 in initial capital expenses in order to simply deliver FSTV programming to the "head end" of any given DBS operator. The head end is where the digital signal is converted and sent up to orbiting satellites. For Dish Network, that means Cheyenne Wyoming. For Direct TV, you have to get your signal to Castle Rock, Colorado, south of Denver.

Desite the challenges, independent media organizations like Free Speech TV are working hard to create space for films and videos that typically don't make it onto commercial networks. Judging from past lost opportunities in cable, radio and elsewhere, it is prudent to be skeptical about the chances of gaining real access to tools of mass communications for independent voices. But we intend to fight. And continue to fight for channels. But more importantly, it is essential to act. To twist the tired jargon of the techno-hypist: you can either wait to read about the role that independent media activists and supporters will play in the future of media technologies, or you can help create that future.

For more information, the FCC's press release about the DBS decision can be found on-line at:http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/1998/nrin8038.html

t we intend to fight. And continue to fight for channels. But more importantly, it is essential to act. To twist the tired jargon of the techno-hypist: you can either wait to read about the role that independent media activists and supporters will play in the future of media technologies, or you can help create that future.

For more information, the FCC's press release about the DBS decision can be found on-line at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/1998/nrinDear MJ,