Thursday, July 7, 2005

Snider's 'Speak Softly' Speaks Loudly

[Author J.H. Snider commented on this book review below.]

In his latest book, Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick, New America Foundation scholar J.H. Snider (bio) dredges up a familiar complaint: broadcasters wielded the "extremely powerful stick" of Washington lobbying to obtain free DTV spectrum, thus ripping off taxpayers to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

This cost has two parts, Snider argues. First, awarding TV stations a temporary second channel at no charge to facilitate the digital transition was a lost revenue opportunity: the channels weren't auctioned off. Second, wireless companies--the current darlings of entrepreneurism--were withheld from the action.

But Snider's attack is much broader than the fight over DTV. He exposes a deep personal bias against broadcasting by refuting the idea that free over-the-air TV is a good thing. He rarely passes up the opportunity to put quotes around "free," emphasizing that TV (and radio, for that matter) has been subsidized by the government in the form of lost spectrum rent. With a choice swath of unused channels in every market, broadcasting also is woefully inefficient, he says.

Given that broadcasters have gained an unbreakable foothold in the American psyche, he isn't calling for the stations to be put out of business. Instead, he wants wireless companies and others to have unlicensed use of the vacant channels on the TV spectrum.

Broadcasters oppose the idea, claiming that the lightly regulated intrusion of new users into TV spectrum poses potential for huge interference problems. Snider even takes a swing at broadcasters in the book's dedication by paying homage to Edwin Howard Armstrong, the inventor of FM radio who committed suicide a half-century ago after failing to deploy his technology. Incumbent AM stations, it seems, blocked his access to radio channels.

Whether or not you buy into his polemics, Snider has done a terrific job chronicling the political history of the 1997 law that instigated the still-underway DTV transition. Snider's account of backroom congressional wheeling and dealing makes for a better read than Joel Brinkley's seminal book on the DTV transition, Defining Vision, which often reads like transcripts of the endless rounds of industry Grand Alliance meetings that set DTV's technical specs.

Adding to the value of Snider's work are the appendices listing in an easy-to-search format the National Association of Broadcasters' lobbying activities during negotiations over the DTV law and a chronology of "Advanced TV" industrial policy developments and other battles over launching DTV.

Unfortunately, the behind-the-scenes shenanigans are obscured by Snider's overuse of economical models and behavioral flow charts to explain why all this happened. It's a shortcoming Snider acknowledges: He prepared the book as a dissertation and wanted it published quickly to influence the current debate on ending the DTV transition and didn't have time to boil it down to a less-dense format.

Author's Reply

Speak Softly is primarily a political, not policy analysis. It seeks to explain why broadcasters have been so effective in Washington, DC. Policy analysis becomes part of that explanation, but it is strictly secondary to the political analysis.

Speak Softly also largely takes for granted that the broadcasters' reputation for political effectiveness is well deserved. Instead, it seeks to explain that effectiveness, especially the common allegation among Washington insiders that control over the airwaves must be a central part of any explanation of the broadcasters' power.

Broadcasters need to understand that politicians don't believe their claims to be disinterested advocates of the truth. My argument is that politicians are not engaging in a paranoid fear of media retribution for crossing their local TV broadcaster. Those fears are reasonable and need to be openly acknowledged by the broadcasting community.

The broadcasters' case is much stronger when it comes to politicians' fear of partisan bias. The economic upside of that type of bias is relatively small for a broadcast company and the potential downside quite large. But when it comes to what I call bias at the level of the industry, the payoffs are diametrically different. On an issue such as the great spectrum giveaway, billions of dollars can be a stake for a large company such as Disney, GE, Viacom, News Corp., or Tribune. Meanwhile, no sane American is going to stop watching his favorite prime time lineup because of some obscure spectrum policy interest that might influence his local TV station to slant coverage in favor of one politician or another. Sure, broadcasters can say that they would never engage in such bias. But why should a politician believe them? A good start at building trust would be for NAB's head of Government Relations, John Orlando, to send out a statement endorsing RTNDA's ethics rules and denouncing, as a violation of those ethics, the letter NAB board member Nick Evans sent to Bob Dole during the Iowa primaries in early 1996. The strategy of pretending that such problems don't exist sends politicians exactly the wrong message.

Let me clarify my position on ad-supported "free" TV. The congressional and FCC record is filled with literally tens of thousands of glowing references to free TV. In DC, it's become the code word of politicians signaling they support their local TV broadcasters. But in this vast literature, the broadcasters have not presented even a remotely coherent justification for all the privileges they have won in the name of preserving free TV. It's just assumed that it's already been proven and doesn't have to be proven again. But it's been many decades since the broadcasters have even attempted a remotely serious policy defense of free TV. As the philosophers say, "it's turtles all the way down." Moreover, the question is no longer free TV vs. pay TV. It's why the U.S., unlike most countries, effectively bans free satellite TV and treats free Internet information as a second class service. And why does Congress and the FCC always seem to be killing free TV in the name of saving it?

Broadcasters need to teach policymakers how to defend free TV because the dirty little secret is that when members of Congress and other policymakers are in a private, confidential setting they don't defend free TV because they don't know how to. Indeed, their first response may be cynical; for example, one prominent senator told me: "there is no such thing as a free lunch; that's what my daddy taught me." It's time for the broadcasting community to explain to the policy community exactly why ad-supported TV deserves its present privileged treatment. If they cannot do that, it should be a matter of shame for anyone, including Broadcasting & Cable, to use the phrase "free TV" without quotes notifying readers that the phrase has become little more than a pledge of allegiance to a particular industry's interests.