Thread by @future_of_music

The @FCC was required to release its Communications Marketplace Report before the end of 2020. Congress requires the agency to assess what's happening in the competitive landscape every 2 years. So they did, late yesterday. (THREAD) docs.fcc.gov/public/attachm…

This is the first time the report has been prepared by the FCC's new office of Economics and Analytics. FCC staff put a lot of work in, and it's useful to have this data publicly available, but there are some real problems, as noted by both @JRosenworcel and @GeoffreyStarks.

The report centers economics but comes up short on analysis. Most of the data comes from industry or investment banking firms. When they're the ones funding the research, the research reflects the questions they're interested in.

(FMC is focused on the "audio marketplace" section of the report, but there's similar dynamics for the sections about broadband and wireless internet access.)

For example, check out this chart. It's interesting, but there's a lot that it doesn't tell you. It doesn't even tell you how this compares to 2 years ago! Is radio ownership getting more or less concentrated? Seems like an important, basic question!

Here's why it's important: in nearly every part of the music ecosystem, too few companies have too much power, and it hurts musicians' ability to reach audiences and be fairly paid. It also harms the public--consolidation means they lose out on diverse voices.

Federal agencies like the FCC are supposed to defend the public interest, in part by protecting a healthy competitive landscape that allows for a flourishing of diverse media. But when asked to look closely at the data and tell a complete story of what's happening...

...they've missed the opportunity. They could have followed our recommendations to measure the degree of media ownership consolidation over time, both nationally and at the individual market level, to understand what's really happening.

Now, we can't speak to what's happening internally, with resource allocation or with research priorities. But we can agree with Commissioner @JRosenworcel who reacted this way:

...and with Commissioner @GeoffreyStarks who shared his own thoughts:

In a discussion of barriers to market entry, the report does a reasonable job of summarizing a range of concerns from a diverse group of stakeholders about the impact of consolidation. (¶ 342-350) docs.fcc.gov/public/attachm…

In that section broad array of groups like @CommonCause @NHMC @openmarkets @econliberties @musicFIRST and us named some of the problems of ownership concentration, from a variety of angles.

Then the report summarizes the arguments of big radio's lobbyists at the National Association of Broadcasters who say they're stressed by competition from online alternatives and the pandemic and should be allowed to consolidate further!

But the report just presents opposing claims, and doesn't actually engage with data that could substantiate claims. You might think they're just trying to present a noncontroversial point of view without taking sides, but...

...that logic falls apart when you get to the most disturbing section of the report (starting at ¶351): the description of the FCC's past 2 years of actions. It misrepresents a series of controversial deregulatory moves as if they were unambiguously in the public interest!

This includes things like doubling down on the reversal of net neutrality rules, and eliminating the FM duplication rule--which allows radio stations to broadcast the same content on multiple frequencies in the same geographic area, encouraging more consolidation.

The report ends by laying out a future agenda and here @GeoffreyStarks is right on: it "fails to set the right vision." For broadcasting, it focuses on "eliminating or modifying obsolete, burdensome, or outmoded rules, including by completing previously initiated rulemakings."

This is in part a reference to the quadrennial review of the FCC's media ownership rules, including the unhinged proposal from big radio lobbyists that it should be legal for one company to own *every radio station* in many communities!

So here's the good news: this vision largely reflects the priorities of outgoing FCC Chairman and probably-the-most-famous-person-who-has-blocked-us-on-twitter @AjitPai. With a new chair, the FCC's agenda may look quite different.

It's not as if the @FCC hasn't done some things that have advanced the public interest (including musicians' interests) over the past 2 years. Most people who work at the agency are dedicated public servants, focused on relatively non-controversial topics.

Whoever ends up in charge, @jrosenworcel is right that they should be using the very smart economists & analysts at FCC to help us understand the changes happening to our communications landscape. That's not just a story about technology. It's also about centralized power.

Even in the best case scenario, it's a very busy agenda ahead for the FCC, with issues of broadband equity, affordability, free expression competing for attention with media ownership issues. In light of that, it's helpful to see how all these issues are related.

All of these issues connect to racial and economic justice concerns. All of these issues connect to problems of monopoly dynamics--too few companies having too much power. All have labor justice elements. All raise fundamental questions of whose voices *count* in public policy.

In the new year, we're going to be encouraging Commissioners Rosenworcel, Starks, Carr, Simington and [5th person TBA] to chart a better course for the FCC. And maybe it starts by understanding, with clear eyes, what's really been happening in the communications marketplace. /end