US media laws face new test

Liberalising media rules has met stiff opposition

The controversial debate over the liberalisation of US media-ownership rules looks set for a showdown with the Bush administration.

The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a spending bill that would block the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from raising the limit on television ownership by a single broadcaster.

But in June, the FCC - which regulates radio, television, satellite and cable - voted in favour of liberalising the rules, and lifting the limit on market share ownership from 35% to 45%.

It also approved plans to let TV, radio and newspaper companies buy each other.

Opponents to the liberalisation have claimed it will result in a monopoly by bigger broadcasters and limit the diversity of opinions and information.

Consumer fears

The House of Representatives' provision formed part of a wider spending bill that funds the Commerce, Justice and State departments.

Liberalising media rules has met stiff opposition

It would prevent the FCC from spending funds to implement the new TV ownership rules.

Hours before the vote in the House of Representatives, the FCC chairman Michael Powell defended the proposed changes.

"We created enforceable rules that reflect the realities of today's media marketplace."

But consumer groups have welcomed the effort to block the new rules.

Gene Kimmelmann, president of the Consumers Union, said the House vote was the "first step" to rolling back the new rules.

Bush veto

However, the controversy looks set to continue.

The White House has formally warned that President Bush would be likely to veto the final spending bill if it included the provision that derailed media changes.

"The FCC administration believes that the new FCC media ownership rules more accurately reflect the changing media landscape," said a White House statement.

"If this provision or a provision like it with respect to any one of the other FCC rules is contained in the final legislation presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," the statement continued.