The Comparative Renewal Process in Television: Problems and Suggested Solutions.
ResearchPublished 1974
An in-depth analysis of some important issues involving the process wherein an existing TV licensee seeks renewal and a new applicant files a competing application for the same channel. This study focuses on the criteria employed by the FCC in this comparative situation: Are the criteria the same as in a comparative hearing between new applicants? If so, does the broadcasting industry lack reasonable stability so that the public interest suffers? How can the industry strike a balance between competitive stimulus in the public interest and reasonable stability? What kind of record is required to ensure renewal in the face of a comparative challenge? How is the existing station's performance to be evaluated by the government licensing agency--qualitatively or quantitatively, and in all or some programming categories? The author discusses these issues within the context of the legislative history of the statutory provision pertaining to renewal and the FCC's past treatment of comparative renewal. 93 pp.
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Available
- Year: 1974
- Print Format: Paperback
- Paperback Pages: 93
- Paperback Price: $30.00
- Document Number: P-5253
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
Geller, Henry, The Comparative Renewal Process in Television: Problems and Suggested Solutions. RAND Corporation, P-5253, 1974. As of September 12, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5253.html
Geller, Henry, The Comparative Renewal Process in Television: Problems and Suggested Solutions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1974. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5253.html. Also available in print form.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.