The government can then more easily dictate what the public is to receive via the airwaves. For the companies involved, increased growth means increased revenue and success.
For the public, the most obvious disadvantage of the lack of competition means a probably lack of objectivity in broadcasting. This has implications for the ideals of freedom of the press and the public right for accurate information. On the other hand, an advantage is an increase of choice in terms of products offered by the large broadcast networks. Some for example have begun to offer Internet broadcasting stations, providing users with a wider variety of listening choices.
According to Bret a. Fausett (2003), the FCC's new directive towards FM radio during the 1960s stimulated healthy competition and experimentation. New audiences were targeted by types of broadcasting that had not been part of radio up to this time. Fausett bemoans the 1996 Telecommunications Act that eliminated all ownership regulations. As mentioned...
In contrast to the 1970s paradigm, this has the disadvantage of largely similar broadcasts ruled by largely similar, dominant companies. In addition to the basic lack of broadcast accuracy and freedom mentioned above, this also means a lack of good entertainment.
Fausett however holds that this consolidation can be mitigated by the rise of Internet radio, because it is not subject to regulation and specific bandwidth. Internet radio can therefore once again provide the public with the diversity that was lost by market consolidation and concentration. It can be the future of truly entertaining and accurate broadcasting.
Bibliography
Fausett, Bret a. (2003, Jan. 13). Radio, Radio. Dr. Dobb's Portal. http://www.ddj.com/architect/184411623
Noam, Eli M. Media Concentration in the United States: Industry Trends and Regulatory Responses. http://www.vii.org/papers/medconc.htm
