• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, November 14, 2007

Who wouldn't want to build up failing media businesses on the one hand -- and hold back other all-powerful media on the other? It seems as nice a balance as any one could hope for.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin seems to be working on perfecting this hand-to-hand move.

On the one hand, he wants to relax rules against cross-ownership, in effect helping out suffering big market TV stations -- especially if big market newspapers take them over. On the other, he wants more regulation against cable operators because they are getting too big and powerful. All that would help those new teleco video services and satellite distributors.

So this Bush Administration appointee wants to throttle and accelerate free enterprise : You can get too big and we'll do something about it; but we won't let you fail if you are small and struggling.

That's nice. But perhaps it isn't what it seems.

Relaxation of cross-ownership TV-newspaper rules can only occur in the top 20 markets -- thus helping the biggest media companies. It would, of course, be especially helpful for Sam Zell in his proposed purchase of the Tribune Company. (The FCC, by the way, has no regulation over the newspaper industry.)

At the same time Martin now says cable has gotten too big -that could mean a cap on the size of the largest companies, all to offer a greater diversity of information. He would also agree to force some cable operators to carry certain cable networks through arbitration. (He is also behind the issue of pushing for a la carte packages of cable networks for consumers).

Sure, I imagine some consumers are moaning they can't get The Outdoor Channel or Big Ten Football or the NFL Network. But with plenty of digital content floating around, it would seem more like a concession to the hard-line FCC commissioners looking to put the screws to some big cable operators.

Martin misses this point: Consumers don't really care about what channels they get, as long as they pay a fair (and perhaps) low monthly price for those programming packages.

If consumers get USA Network with the Fur Channel, so be it. If they get ESPN with the Accountants' Short Sleeve Network, that is fine. You want to regulate? Cut to the chase.

Make it simple for the consumer. Then you can attend to whatever free-market media business politics you deem necessary .