Video Age International October 2015

52 security. Thus, the burden will be shifted to the FCC, which will be the new content watchdog. Also driving regulations during the next 15 years are the consumer-focused anti-trust concerns, which deal with anti-competitive behavior and abuses of a dominant market position that increase costs on consumers as well as offering less choice. Howwill these regulations be enforced? The short answer is that courts will enforce the decrees and verdictsmandated by regulatory agencies. However, in the long term, it will be the “victims” that will demand protection, be they corporate competitors or the consumer. These “victims” will insist that protections continue for those who are deemed weaker in the David vs. Goliath scenario. What we can also expect in 2030 is a continuation of an obsolescence-based business model, where consumers have to discard working computers due to software updates and telephones for discontinued power plugs. This is because in the U.S. and many other countries, official standards that don’t require radio waves are not government-regulated. Instead they are privately issued and regulated by the Geneva, Switzerland-based International Organization for Standardization, which is composed of 162 member countries. T he global prognosis for a regulation-free media environment during the next two decades is minimal at best. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth: the future of media will include a heavy dose of regulatory oversight. This will include business practices, program content and technical issues. For some, such as the “content providers” that create and/or distribute videos and programs, the focus will be on open competition and the need to avoid concentration of ownership. On the other hand, there are the Internet service providers (ISPs), companies that provide the consumer with access to the Internet, like, in the U.S., AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox and Time Warner Cable. Over the next 15 years, the trend for regulation will vary according to a company’s role. Today, those involved tend to be the same players. For instance, in addition to being an ISP, Comcast owns NBCUniversal and delivers TV shows and movies through its Xfinity Internet service. The trend toward more regulatory oversight has been a response to the need for increased consumer protection. Economic issues, such as vertical and horizontal concentration of ownership by a handful of international corporate entities have also contributed to the increase.  Regulation will take various forms, depending on the type of media and its location. In the U.S., the reason for such regulation goes back to the 1920s and 1930s. During that early period of electronic media policy, those in the mass media decided that the best regulatory focus was that of “self-regulation.” In other words, the American perspective was to give private enterprise a predominant role, including that of encouraging technology, with the understanding that the U.S. federal government would keep a watchful eye via the newly created Federal Communications Commission (FCC). One key area that was retained by the FCC was that of licensing and frequency/spectrum allocation. However, when cable television started tomake its appearance in the U.S., it was not the FCC that had most of the regulatory control, but rather local municipalities. Cable did not utilize the “public airwaves” but rather was viewed more as a public utility which was seen as a “natural monopoly.” As such it regulated in exchange for an exclusive franchise to operate within a specific geographic area. Looking ahead to the next 15 years, it is likely that spectrum usage (and the avoidance of interference) will continue to be one of the primary concerns of the FCC. This can be seen in two spheres: the FCC broadcast spectrum auction and the recent move toward “network neutrality” vis-à-vis the Internet. Network neutrality (Net Neutrality for short), in its most basic terms means an Internet that enables and protects free speech, and ISPs that provide consumers with open networks — without blocking or discriminating against any content that flow over those networks. Just recently, the FCC commissioners voted three-to-two to approve a 300-plus page net neutrality proposal, rooted in Title II of the U.S. Communications Act, which has two “competing” laws: the original 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. However, both documents state that common carriers must act “in the public interest,” and can’t “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.” This rule reversed the previous ISP status as an “information service” (i.e., no different from a website or an online service), which in turn removed the FCC’s ability to prohibit ISPs from blocking or discriminating against online content. The old “information service” approach also removed the FCC’s ability to ensure that ISPs protected consumer privacy. In an earlier Verizon vs. FCC court action, the U.S. Court stated that the FCC lacked authority because of “the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of ‘telecommunications services’, but instead as providers of ‘information services‘.” The net neutrality protection requires a regulatory infrastructure, for without it cable and phone companies would be tempted – on strictly business or financial grounds – to “carve” the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that couldafford topay for preferential treatment, relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. In the eyes of many, such an unregulated environment would destroy the open Internet. What does that mean in terms of content providers? In theory, the ISP will have no control or influence over content; they will be powerless over potential complaints relating to use of vulgarities, violence, and even concerns of By Steve Schiffman October 2015 V I D E O A G E Ten Steps to 2030 More Regulations, Stricter Rules Driven By Consumers, Not Lobbies Steve Schiffman Steve Schiffman is a Las Vegas, Nevada- based international entertainment attorney, a television producer and a journalist. He’s a media and intellectual property expert, and, in addition to such clients as CBS, NBC and CNN, he has consulted for the United Nations, U.S. State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and has appeared on such global media as CBC-TV, BBC, France 24 and Russia Today. Schiffman was also the founder and CEO of Tourism Television Inc., which aired English-language movies, news and information television services to guests of leading hot e l s , around the world, including those in Moscow and Central Asia. He’s now producing and hosting Cruising Gourmet and Vegas Nightlife Looking ahead to the next 15 years, it is likely that spectrum usage will continue to be one of the primary concerns of the FCC.