Dublin2BuenosAires
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,510
- Likes
- 3,104
A good result for the government, Magnetto will not be happy. The Supreme Court, complete with imposing crucifix!, have ruled to crucify Clarin groups monopolistic media interests.
In the interests of keeping informed I have had a go at translating the legal claues/articles ruled on today from La Nacion. Criticism and corrections welcomed openly and begrudgingly ; )
Clarin group where disputing the following 4 clauses of the Media Law enacted in 2009.
Article 161 - In short, anyone covered by this ruling has 1 year to divest there interests in line with the Media Law, Clarin would have 1 year to comply with anti-monopoly ruling.
Article 41 - Licenses for broadcast, print etc are non transferable. There are some exceptions around continuity of service but it reads to me like Clarin can't create another group and dump licenses in there.
Article 45 - Mutiple license restrictions , at a national level if you have a subscription based license for satellite broadcasting you can't hold another license for broadcasting (radio, tv) or printing papers. (Help needed here!...) You can, i think, have up to ten channels if broadcasting not by satellite (or cable i believe) but by radio frequency be that tv or radio. Non digital channels is my limited understanding. You can have 24 licenses (channels I assume??) where they are physically linked. Someone more media tech savvy can explain how the applies.
You cannot in any of those mutiple license (channel) restrictions broadcast to more than 35% of the nation.
There are some local restrictions on broadcasts which follow a similar theme, not particularly significant in my reading.
Article 48 Undue Concentration : Basically you cannot have linked companies, if you are to be awarded a license some due dilligence must take place to ensure your activities aren't already linked to the media.
That's my take, roughly and quickly translated.
In my view, I wouldn't have an issue with this as monopolies are inherently bad for creativity and good business practice in relation to the customer, BUT....
...the strong evidence here is that all new licenses granted will be government mouthpieces. There is nothing in there to create an impartial body to grant licenses and no transparency around how they are awarded and revoked other than to stop big media groups launching channels.
We already know the govt is anti Cablevision and Pro DirecTV. It would be nice to be able to believe that the ultimate goal here isn't propaganda control.
I am a Cablevision customer, more for the sports than anything else. I'd rather not have a dish on the side of my building and I'd like to have one bill for TV and internet. I guess in the end the customer will pay more due to reduced bill consolidation too. I don't really like the Clarin newspaper so won't shed much of a tear should Magnetto decide to bin it. Not likely though.
Have at it...
In the interests of keeping informed I have had a go at translating the legal claues/articles ruled on today from La Nacion. Criticism and corrections welcomed openly and begrudgingly ; )
Clarin group where disputing the following 4 clauses of the Media Law enacted in 2009.
Article 161 - In short, anyone covered by this ruling has 1 year to divest there interests in line with the Media Law, Clarin would have 1 year to comply with anti-monopoly ruling.
Article 41 - Licenses for broadcast, print etc are non transferable. There are some exceptions around continuity of service but it reads to me like Clarin can't create another group and dump licenses in there.
Article 45 - Mutiple license restrictions , at a national level if you have a subscription based license for satellite broadcasting you can't hold another license for broadcasting (radio, tv) or printing papers. (Help needed here!...) You can, i think, have up to ten channels if broadcasting not by satellite (or cable i believe) but by radio frequency be that tv or radio. Non digital channels is my limited understanding. You can have 24 licenses (channels I assume??) where they are physically linked. Someone more media tech savvy can explain how the applies.
You cannot in any of those mutiple license (channel) restrictions broadcast to more than 35% of the nation.
There are some local restrictions on broadcasts which follow a similar theme, not particularly significant in my reading.
Article 48 Undue Concentration : Basically you cannot have linked companies, if you are to be awarded a license some due dilligence must take place to ensure your activities aren't already linked to the media.
That's my take, roughly and quickly translated.
In my view, I wouldn't have an issue with this as monopolies are inherently bad for creativity and good business practice in relation to the customer, BUT....
...the strong evidence here is that all new licenses granted will be government mouthpieces. There is nothing in there to create an impartial body to grant licenses and no transparency around how they are awarded and revoked other than to stop big media groups launching channels.
We already know the govt is anti Cablevision and Pro DirecTV. It would be nice to be able to believe that the ultimate goal here isn't propaganda control.
I am a Cablevision customer, more for the sports than anything else. I'd rather not have a dish on the side of my building and I'd like to have one bill for TV and internet. I guess in the end the customer will pay more due to reduced bill consolidation too. I don't really like the Clarin newspaper so won't shed much of a tear should Magnetto decide to bin it. Not likely though.
Have at it...