By Paul Davidson USA TODAY

As federal regulators move closer to a sweeping overhaul of media ownership rules, they are backing away from a controversial proposal to rely on case-by-case analysis to judge mergers.

Instead, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to craft clearly defined limits similar to, though more lenient than, today's blanket rules, say people familiar with the matter.

The Federal Communications Commission is in the home stretch of an expected relaxation of decades-old rules limiting newspaper, TV and radio companies. A staff recommendation is to be given to the five commissioners in early May, with their vote slated for June 2.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell has said the current caps are outdated in an era of 200-channel cable TV and the Internet.

Consumer advocates say eased limits will leave a handful of companies controlling what people see, hear and read.

Powell has expressed interest in creating a ''diversity index,'' a formula to measure whether a proposed merger between, say, a newspaper owner and a broadcaster leaves too few media voices in a market. The index is said to appeal to Powell, an antitrust lawyer, partly because it would mirror a formula used by antitrust enforcers to determine if a proposed merger would hurt competition. But tests of the index showed it can be thorny to apply: Newspapers, for instance, must be weighed more heavily than radio stations or Web sites.

At a conference, Republican Commissioner Kevin Martin said, ''I think the commission would be better off to have simple rules that everyone can understand,'' Communications Daily reported.

Martin is a swing vote, because the FCC's two other Republicans, Powell and Kathleen Abernathy, favor eased limits, while Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein oppose them.

But some FCC officials say the diversity index was never meant to replace fixed rules or, at most, was just one option.

The FCC still plans to use the index as a legal basis for new limits. A federal appeals court struck down several of the FCC's media caps as lacking justification.

For example, the total ban on ownership of a newspaper and TV or radio station in a market would be replaced by rules allowing TV-newspaper linkups in top markets, and setting limits on newspaper-radio-TV marriages based on market size. Martin has said he favors lifting the ban completely.

FCC staffers believe the diversity index also shows that current limits on ownership of a TV station and one or more radio stations in a market are unnecessary. The staff is also expected to recommend:

* Raising from 35% to about 45% the cap on the national audience a TV broadcaster can reach with affiliates it owns.

* Easing a ban on owning two TV stations in smaller markets.

* Keeping a ban against mergers between the top four networks

From USA Today

Isn't the first priority of an invading force to take control of the mass media from the people and spew their own agenda into the airwaves?

Why do you think the RIAA is after MP3s? It's an attempt to control the internet by the major labels and Hollywood studios (Yeah, I know the MPAA isn't publicly going after MP3s. Ever hear of Soundtracks? The MPAA has an interest). As long as the internet is unrestricted, complete information/entertainment domination isn't possible.

And so starts the erra of free speach for those who can aford it.

Actually we do have a friend in the FCC office in the way of Commisioner Adelstien.
Johanna Mikes who for the past several years has worked with Rick Boucher, has recently joined his staff as well. She understands the issues as well as anyone in Washington and better than most. Send them your comments and concerns. They do listen.

Control of the dissemination of knowledge is the first step to creating a nation of complacency. It doesn't matter that the control comes from private corporations, in fact its probably worse because there's no checks and balances there. Did anyone ever see 'The Running Man?' Just what the media needs - to be able to dictate policy even more, by indoctrinating the next generation of lawmakers from birth. As bad as government can be, I think that private corporation has the potential to be exponentially worse.

BlueCollarJoe, your analogy to the Running Man is absolutly correct. (cool movie by the way.) The media needs to be unbias. The works, I call them works because they a very entertaining, but also very informative and true, at azoz.com touches on this problem already, with the whole CNN thing. The future if left in the hands of few(big business) has the potential to be really bad, I just hope we all can get our government to see the light and make it better.

Example of how this is bad: After the dixie chicks made a statement against the president (somthing to the effect of 'were ashamed that bush is from texas'), Clear channel (who owns what 60% of the market?) banned there songs from there radio stations, and held public CD burning/destroying events. All because they made a negative comment twards the president.

Kinda hard to have free speach when there is only one one available voice. But who realy cares about free speach! Were talking about buisnesses, who create jobs! You want jobs dont you?!?! There just trying to make some money, we shouldn't take it to personaly.