This is one of those moments when an observer might ask: Who's in charge here?
Here's the story from Radio Business Report:
On Wednesday, the FCC's Media Bureau released a Public Notice to give guidance to the industry about how the Bureau will process pending and future proposed broadcast television transactions. “In the interest of transparency, we hope that all interested entities will find it helpful for us to identify publicly a concern that has arisen in our review of proposed transactions in recent months and years and that will enter into our future transaction reviews. That concern relates to the combination in a transaction of operational agreements of various types along with contingent financial interests or financing relationships,” said Bill Lake, Media Bureau Chief.
Read more at http://rbr.com/media-bureau-issues-guidance-on-future-tv-deals/#WFsdRledJq6zpAAv.99
That set off a series of responses from the two Republican Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly, who felt the Notice was a new policy, not based on any stated precedent. The Commission had already announced it was going to address this issue at its March 31st meeting. So did the bureau do an end-around the Commissioners?
In my time in DC, it was obvious to me that the career civil servants were the real ones doing all the heavy lifting. The political appointees were often less familiar with the procedure and, in some cases, completely unfamiliar with the regulated industry. They were merely serving at the pleasure of the President. So now, we have a situation when the Chairman has indicated he might relax some ownership regulations, and the civil servants beat him to the punch, reminding licensees of their obligations under the law. So what does this say? We'll find out on March 31st. And if the FCC reverses the Media Bureau, and loosens ownership rules as a statement of policy, could the Congress then come down on the Commission, and issue a rebuke, as they did the last time ownership was discussed? It's always interesting. As I said, who's in charge?
Here's the story from Radio Business Report:
On Wednesday, the FCC's Media Bureau released a Public Notice to give guidance to the industry about how the Bureau will process pending and future proposed broadcast television transactions. “In the interest of transparency, we hope that all interested entities will find it helpful for us to identify publicly a concern that has arisen in our review of proposed transactions in recent months and years and that will enter into our future transaction reviews. That concern relates to the combination in a transaction of operational agreements of various types along with contingent financial interests or financing relationships,” said Bill Lake, Media Bureau Chief.
Read more at http://rbr.com/media-bureau-issues-guidance-on-future-tv-deals/#WFsdRledJq6zpAAv.99
That set off a series of responses from the two Republican Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly, who felt the Notice was a new policy, not based on any stated precedent. The Commission had already announced it was going to address this issue at its March 31st meeting. So did the bureau do an end-around the Commissioners?
In my time in DC, it was obvious to me that the career civil servants were the real ones doing all the heavy lifting. The political appointees were often less familiar with the procedure and, in some cases, completely unfamiliar with the regulated industry. They were merely serving at the pleasure of the President. So now, we have a situation when the Chairman has indicated he might relax some ownership regulations, and the civil servants beat him to the punch, reminding licensees of their obligations under the law. So what does this say? We'll find out on March 31st. And if the FCC reverses the Media Bureau, and loosens ownership rules as a statement of policy, could the Congress then come down on the Commission, and issue a rebuke, as they did the last time ownership was discussed? It's always interesting. As I said, who's in charge?