Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-xrnlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T02:12:00.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital Television and the Quid Pro Quo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas W. Hazlett  and
Matthew L. Spitzer
Thomas W. Hazlett*
Affiliation:
American Enterprise Institute
Matthew L. Spitzer*
Affiliation:
Caltech and University of Southern California
*
American Enterprise Institute
Caltech, and Professor of Law, University of Southern California.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent zero-priced award of $11–70 billion in digital TV (DTV) licenses by the federal government occurred when auctions had been initiated for non-broadcast licenses and when the seven decade-old regime of ‘public trusteeship’ in broadcasting had become famous for licensee reneging on promised obligations. Policymakers nonetheless declined to auction DTV licenses when enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rejecting a plea from the Senate Majority Leader. This paper provides an overview of the episode and investigates three basic questions. (1) Why does Congress continue a regulatory system that routinely fails to provide the benefits it is supposed to generate? (2) Why did the National Association of Broadcasters propose high definition television as a way of keeping land mobile operators off an unused spectrum? (3) Why did Congress delegate to the FCC the decision to award licenses for digital television broadcasting?

Type
Research Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , August 2000 , pp. 115 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2000 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, Scott and Sened, Itai. 1993. The Role of Lobbyists: Entrepreneurs with Two Audiences. American Journal of Political Science 37(3): 834–866.Google Scholar
Andrews, Edmund L. 1996. Dole Steps up Criticism of Telecommunications Bill. New York Times 11 January: D2.Google Scholar
Anon. 1995. Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook. New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.Google Scholar
Aranson, Peter H., Gellhorn, Ernest and Robinson, Glen O. 1982. A Theory of Legislative Delegation. Cornell Law Review 68(1): 1–67.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1964. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1993. Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes. American Journal of Political Science 37(3): 799–833.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S. 1989. Agency Budgets, Cost Information, and Auditing. American Journal of Political Science 33(3): 670–699.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffery S. and Weingast, Barry. 1992. The Political Control of Bureaucracies Under Asymmetric Information. American Journal of Political Science 36(2): 509–524.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. 1994. A Sequential Choice Theory Perspective on Legislative Organization. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19(2): 267–296.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. and Ferejohn, John A. 1989. Bargaining in Legislatures. American Political Science Review 83(4): 1181–1206.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen. 1995. Political Control Versus Expertise: Congressional Choices About Administrative Procedures. American Political Science Review 89(1): 62–73.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen. 1996. Strategic Responses to Institutional Change: Parties, Committees and Multiple Referral. Public Choice 88(3/4): 239–258.Google Scholar
Bazelon, David L. 1975. FCC Regulation of the Telecommunications Press. Duke Law Journal 1975(2): 213.Google Scholar
Beck, Roger, Hoskins, C. and Connolly, J. M. 1992. Rent Extraction Through Political Extortion: An Empirical Examination. Journal of Legal Studies 21(1): 217.Google Scholar
Beltz, Cynthia. 1991. High-Tech Maneuvers: The Industrial Policy Lessons of HDTV. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan. 1988. Review Article: Formal Models of Bureaucracy. British Journal of Political Science 18: 353–395.Google Scholar
Foundation, Benton. 1999. Available from http://www.benton.org/Policy/TV/digital.html. Cited 28 September.Google Scholar
Brehm, John and Gates, Scott. 1993. Donut Shops and Speed Traps: Evaluating Models of Supervision on Police Behavior. American Journal of Political Science 37(2): 555–581.Google Scholar
Brinkley, Joel. 1997. Defining Vision. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., Tollison, Robert D. and Tollock, Gordon. 1980. Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall, McCubbins, Mathew and Weingast, Barry. 1989. A Theory of Political Control and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 33(3): 588–611.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. and Peter Rosendorff, B. 1993. A Signaling Theory of Congressional Oversight. Games and Economic Behavior 5(3): 44–70.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., Fritschler, A. L. and Smith, B. L. R. 1985. Supply-Side Management in the Reagan Administration. Public Administration Review 45(6): 805–814.Google Scholar
Carter, T. Barton, Franklin, Marc A. and Wright, Jay B. 1999. The First Amendment and the Fourth Estate, 5th edition. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald. 1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4: 386–405.Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald. 1959. The Federal Communication Commission. Journal of Law and Economics 2(1): 14.Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald. 1965. Evaluation of Public Policy Relating to Radio and Television Broadcasting: Social and Economic Issues. Land Economics 161–167.Google Scholar
Cohen, Linda and Noll, Roger, Eds. 1991. The Technology Pork Barrel. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
CBO, 1999. Completing the Transition to Digital Television.Google Scholar
CBO, 1997. Where Do We Go From Here? The FCC Auctions and the Future of Radio Spectrum Management.Google Scholar
Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association. 1999. Availiable from http://www.cemacity.org/gazette/files3/dtvsales.html. Cited 28 September.Google Scholar
Corn-Revere, Ronald. 1994. New Technology and the First Amendment: Breaking the Cycle of Repression. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 17: 247.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel. 1995. Commitment, Deference, and Legislative Institutions. American Political Science Review 89(2): 344–355.Google Scholar
Dill, Clarence C. 1938. Radio Law. Washington, DC: Noland Law Cook Co.Google Scholar
Donlan, Thomas G. 1991. Supertech: How America Can Win the Technology Race. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.Google Scholar
Durant, Robert F. 1995. Public Policy, Overhead Democracy, and The Professional State Revisited. Administration & Society 27(2): 165–202.Google Scholar
Dwyer, John P. 1990. The Pathology of Symbolic Legislation. Ecology Law Quarterly 17: 233–316.Google Scholar
Emord, Jonathon. 1991. Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Epstein, David and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1994. Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 38(3): 697–722.Google Scholar
Epstein, David and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1995. A Theory of Strategic Oversight: Congress, Lobbyists, and the Bureaucracy. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 11(2): 227–255.Google Scholar
Epstein, David and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1996. Divided Government and the Design of Administrative Procedures: A Formal Model and Empirical Test. The Journal of Politics 58(2): 373–397.Google Scholar
Epstein, David and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 1966. In the Matter of: Amendment of Subpart L, Part 91, To Adopt Rules and Regulations to Govern the Grant of Authorizations in the Business Radio Service for Microwave Stations to Relay Television Signals to Community Antenna Systems: Second Report and Order, Docket No. 14895.Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 1987. Notice of Inquiry, MM Docket No. 87–268. 2 FCC Red 5125.Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 1997a. In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Broadcast Service, FCC Record 97–116 (3 April).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 1997b. The FCC Report to Congress on Spectrum Auctions, WT Docket No. 97–150, FCC 97–353 (9 October).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 1997c. Fifth Report an Order, MM Docket No. 87–268, 12 FCC Red 12809 (3 April).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 1998. Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming, [‘FCC Cable Report’] CS Docket No. 97–141 (13 January).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 1999. FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Issues: Report on Transmission Standards for Digital Television.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1982. Legislative Choice of Regulatory Forms: Legal Process or Administrative Process? Public Choice 39: 33–66.Google Scholar
Fisher, Franklin M., Ferral, Victor E. Jr., Belsley, David and Mitchell, Bridger M. 1966. Community Antenna Television Systems and Local Television Station Audience. Quarterly Journal of Economics 80: 227.Google Scholar
Fournier, Gary M. and Campbell, Ellen S. 1993. Shifts in Broadcast Policy and the Value of Television Licenses. Information Economics & Policy 5: 87–104.Google Scholar
Frug, Gerald. 1984. The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law. Harvard Law Review 97: 1277–1388.Google Scholar
Geller, Henry. 1998. Public Interest Regulation in the Digital Era. Cordoza Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 16: 341.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W. 1993. Information and the Allocation of Legislative Authority. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 149(1): 321–341.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W. and Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. Collective Decision Making and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3(2): 287–335.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W. and Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. Organization of Informative Committees by a Rational Legislature. American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 531–564.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., Marshall, William J. and Weingast, Barry R. 1989. Regulation and the Theory of Legislative Choice: The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. Journal of Law & Economics 32(April): 35–61.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Douglas H. 1979. Regulation of Broadcasting: Law and Policy towards Radio, Television, and Cable Communications. St. Paul, MI: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Glick, Eric. 1999. Is DTV Dead in the Water? Cable World 25 October: 1.Google Scholar
Goodman, Ellen P. 1997. Digital Television and the Allure of Auctions: The Birth and Stillbirth of DTV Legislation. Federal Communications Law Journal 49: 517–549.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 1994. Testing Committee Composition Hypotheses for the U.S. Congress. Journal of Politics 56(2): 440–458.Google Scholar
Grossman, Lawrence K. 1995. The Electronic Republic. NY: Viking.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L. and Grofman, Bernard. 1990. The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias. American Political Science Review 84(4): 1149–1166.Google Scholar
Halonen, Doug. 1995. Hundt Under Fire on Advanced TV: Takes Both Sides of Issue, Broadcasters Say. Electronic Media 6 November: 1.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. 1990. The Rationality of U.S. Regulations of the Broadcast Spectrum. Journal of Law & Economics 33(April): 133.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. 1996. Cable Television Rate Deregulation. International Journal of the Economics of Business 3(July): 145–163.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. 1997. Physical Scarity, Rent Seeking, and the First Amendment. Columbia Law Review 97: 905.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. 1998. Assigning Property Rights to Radio Spectrum Users: Why Did FCC License Auctions Take 67 Years? Journal of Law & Economics 41(October): 529–575.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. and Boliek, Babette E.L. 1998. Use of Designated Entity Preferences in Assigning Wireless Licenses. Paper presented at Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 27 July.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. and Michaels, Robert J. 1993. The Cost of Rent Seeking: Evidence from the Cellular Telephone License Lotteries. Southern Economic Journal 59: 425.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. and Sosa, David W. 1997. Is the Fairness Doctrine a ‘Chilling Effect’? Lessons from the Postderegulation Radio Market. Journal of Legal Studies 21(January).Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W. and Spitzer, Matthew. 1997. Public Policy Toward Cable Television. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Jeffrey S. and Weissert, Carol S. 1995. Implementation and the Iron of Delegation: The Politics of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal. The Journal of Politics 57(2): 344–369.Google Scholar
Hill, Jeffrey S. and Williams, Kenneth C. 1993. The Decline of Private Bills: Resource Allocation, Credit Claiming, and the Decision to Delegate. American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 1008–1031.Google Scholar
Hu, Jim. 1998. Study: Net Users Watch Less TV [CNET News] (cited 12 August 1998). Available from http://www.cnetnews.com.Google Scholar
Huber, Peter. 1997. Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jicha, Tom. 1997. High Definition TV, Low Definition Truth. Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel 15 November: 1E, Final Edition.Google Scholar
Kato, Junko. 1996. Review Article: Institutions and Rationality in Politics—Three Varieties of Neo-Institutionalists. British Journal of Political Science 26(4): 553–582.Google Scholar
Kerrigan, Karen. 1995. Hijacking the Broadcast Spectrum, Washington Times 21 August: A17.Google Scholar
Kerrigan, Karen. 1996. Mr. Dole Fights a Big Giveaway, New York Times 19 January: A28.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick and McCubbins, Matthew D. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krasnow, Erwin G., Longley, Lawrence D. and Terry, Herbert A. 1982. The Politics of Broadcast Regulation. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Krattenmaker, Thomas G. and Powe, Lucas A. Jr. 1994. Regulating Broadcast Programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. Are Congressional Committees Composed of Preference Outliers? American Political Science Review 84(1): 149–163.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kwerel, Evan and Williams, John R. 1992. Changing Channel: Voluntary Reallocation of UHF Television Spectrum. Working Paper 27. Office of Plans and Policy, Federal Communications Commission (November).Google Scholar
Lenway, Stefanie A., Jacobson, Carol K. and Goldstein, Judith. 1990. To Lobby or to Petition: The Political Environment of U.S. Trade Policy. Journal of Management 16(1): 119–134.Google Scholar
Levi, Lili. 1992. The Hard Case of Broadcast Indecency. New York University Review Law & Society Change 20(49): 85–86.Google Scholar
Levin, Harvey. 1980. Fact and Fancy in Television Regulation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Levin, Ronald M. 1986. Administrative Discretion, Judicial Review, and the Gloomy World of Judge Smith. Duke Law Journal 1986: 258–275.Google Scholar
Levine, Michael E. and Forrence, Jennifer L. 1990. Regulatory Capture, Public Interest, and the Public Agenda: Toward a Synthesis. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(Special Issue): 166–198.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1994. Divided Government and U.S. Trade Policy: Theory and Evidence. International Organization 48(4): 595–632.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1979. The End of Liberalism, 2nd edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1994. Learning from Oversight: Fire Alarms and Police Patrols Reconstructed. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 10(1): 96–125.Google Scholar
Lynn, Laurence E. Jr. 1987. Managing Public Policy. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Macey, Jonathan R. 1998. Winstar, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. Supreme Court Economic Review 6: 173–200.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 1983. Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 1985. Due Process in the Administrative State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 1997. Greed, Chaos, and Governance. Hew Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Kenneth R. 1995. Closing Military Bases (Finally): Solving Collective Dilemmas Through Delegation. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(3): 393–413.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McChesney, Fred S. 1997a. Public Choice and the Structural Constitution: Purchasing Political Inaction: How Regulators Use the Threat of Legal ‘Reform’ to Extort Payoffs. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 21: 211–217.Google Scholar
McChesney, Fred S. 1997b. Money for Nothing: Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McChesney, Robert W. 1994. Telecommunications, Mass Media & Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClanahan, E. Thomas. 1996. Crying Foul Congress Misses Point Over TV Industry Waffling. Kansas City Star 18 September: C6, Metropolitan Edition.Google Scholar
McConnell, Bill. 2000. Congress Disses Datacasting. Broadcasting & Cable 31 July: 17.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G. and Weingast, Barry R. 1987. Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 3(2): 243–278.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science 28(1): 165–179.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard. 1976. Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control. Journal of Economic Theory 12(3): 472–482.Google Scholar
Minow, Newton and LaMay, Craig. 1995. Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, Television, and the First Amendment. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1982. Regulatory Performance and Presidential Administration. American Journal of Politics 26: 197–224.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1987. An Assessment of the Positive Theory of ‘Congressional Dominance’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 12(4): 475–519.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1990. Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(Special Issue): 213–253.Google Scholar
Moran, Mark and Weingast, Barry. 1983. Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91(5): 765–800.Google Scholar
Mundy, Alicia. 1997. Washington: Nets Shift Gears on HDTV. Mediaweek 29 September.Google Scholar
Negroponte, Nicolas. 1995. Being Digital. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Noll, Roger and Owen, Bruce. 1983. The Political Economy of Deregulation: Interest Groups in the Regulatory Process. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Noll, Roger, Peck, M. J.: and McGowan, John J. 1973. Economic Aspects of Television Regulation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Owen, Bruce M. 1999. The Internet Challenge to Television. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Owen, Bruce M., Beebe, Jack H. and Manning, William G. Jr. 1974. Television Economics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Owen, Bruce M. and Wildman, Steven. 1992. Video Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Park, Rolla Edward. 1972. Cable Television, UHF Broadcasting, and FCC Regulatory Policy. Journal of Law & Economics 15(1): 207.Google Scholar
de Sola Pool, Ithiel. 1983. Technologies of Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pope, Kyle and Robichaux, Mark. 1997. Hype Definition: Waiting for HDTV? Wall Street Journal 12 September.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1971. Taxation by Regulation. Bell Journal of Economic & Management Science 2(1): 22.Google Scholar
Powe, Lucas A. Jr. 1987. American Broadcasting and the First Amendment. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Powell, III, Clayton, Adam. 1998. Net Demographics Starting to Even Out, Survey Finds, Free! [The Freedom Forum Online] (cited 29 April). Available from http://www.freedomfornm.org.Google Scholar
President. 1997a. Executive Order, Title 3—The President's Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees and Amendments to Executive Orders 13038 and 13054. Federal Register 62, no. 191 (29 September): 51755.Google Scholar
President. 1997b. Title 3—The President Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters, Part IX, Thursday, 13 March. Federal Register 62, no. 49 (11 March): 12065.Google Scholar
Ray, William B. 1990. The Ups and Downs of Radio-TV Regulation. Ames, IO: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Glen O. 1969. Radio Spectrum Regulation: The Administrative Process and the Problems of Institutional Reform. Minnesota Law Review 53: 1179, 1205.Google Scholar
Robinson, Glen O. 1978. The Federal Communications Commission: An Essay on Regulatory Watchdogs. Virginia Law Review 64: 169.Google Scholar
Robinson, Glen O. 1989. Commentary on ‘Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies’: Political Uses of Structure and Process. Virginia Law Review 75: 483–508.Google Scholar
Safire, William. 1995. The Greatest Auction Ever. New York Times 16 March: A25.Google Scholar
Safire, William. 1996. Stop the Giveaway. New York Times 4 September: A21.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1978. Instability of Simple Dynamic Games. Review of Economic Studies 45(3): 575–594.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1979. Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models. American Journal of Political Science 23(1): 27–59.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth and Weingast, Barry. 1987a. The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power. American Political Science Review 81(1): 85.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth and Weingast, Barry. 1987b. Reflections on Committee Power. American Political Science Review 81(3): 935–945.Google Scholar
Somerville, Sean. 1997. Sinclair Resists Senators on HDTV. Baltimore Sun 18 September: C1, Final Edition.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Matthew L. 1989. The Constitutionality of Licensing Broadcasters. New York University Law Review 64: 990.Google Scholar
Stern, Christopher. 1997. Gore Dishes Up Digital Split with Free-Ad Fudge. Variety 27 October.Google Scholar
Streeter, Thomas. 1997. Selling the Air. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1971. The Theory of Economic Regulation. Bell Journal of Economics & Management Science 2(1): 3.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1993. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Swisher, Kara. 1998. AOL.COM. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Talbert, Jeffery C., Jones, Bryand D. and Baumgartner, Frank R. 1995. Nonlegislative Hearings and Policy Change in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 39(2): 383–406.Google Scholar
Teske, Paul. 1991. Interests and Institutions in State Regulation. American Journal of Political Science 35(1): 139–154.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1993. Rent Seeking. Aldershot, Hants, England: E. Elgar.Google Scholar
Victor, Kirk. 1996. Technical Difficulties. National Journal 28(44): 2343.Google Scholar
Vita, Michael G. and Wiegand, John P. 1993. Must-Carry Regulations for Cable Television Systems: An Economic Policy Analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 37(1): 1.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry. 1984. The Congressional-Bureaucratic System: A Principal-Agent Perspective (with applications to the SEC). Public Choice 44(4): 147–191.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry and Marshall, William. 1988. The Industrial Organization of Congress; or Why Legislatures, Like Firms, are not Organized as Markets. Journal of Political Economy 96(1): 132–163.Google Scholar
Wiley, Richard. 1999. Digital TV Will Find its Own Way. Electronic Media 21 July: 18.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Timothy A. and Hunt, Terrell E. 1995. Agency Discretion and Advances in Regulatory Theory: Flexible Agency Approaches Toward the Regulated Community as a Model for the Congress-Agency Relationship. George Washington Law Review 63: 479–550.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver. 1967. Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size. Journal of Political Economy 75(2): 123.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Woolley, John T. 1993. Conflict Among Regulators and the Hypothesis of Congressional Dominance. The Journal of Politics 55(1): 92–114.Google Scholar