New television, old politics: The transition to digital tv in the United States and Britain

Cambridge University Press

Volumn 9780521823999, Issue , 2004, Pages 1-311

  Galperin, Hernan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922949329     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511510083     Document Type: Book

References (264)

1. Aaron, Harris J. 2000. I Want My MTV: The Debate over Digital Must-Carry. Boston University Law Review 80: 885–906.
2. Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters. 1998. Final Report.Washington, DC: author.
3. Albiniak, Page. 2001. Stations “Waiver” on DTV. Broadcasting & Cable, August 20.
4. Andrews, Edmund L. 1995. Telecom Bill: Another Day, Another Rift. New York Times, December 29.
5. Annan Committee. 1977. The Future of Broadcasting. London: HMSO.
6. Aronson, Jonathan D., and Peter F. Cowhey. 1988. When Countries Talk: International Trade in Telecommunications Service. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
7. Arthur D. Little. 1994. Conditional Access Systems: Ensuring Growth and Competition in Digital Broadcasting. London: author.
8. Arthur, Brian. 1989. Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events. Economic Journal 99: 116–131.
9. Banks, Jeffrey S., Linda R. Cohen, and Roger G. Noll. 1991. The Politics of Commercial R&D Programs. In Linda R. Cohen and Roger G. Noll, eds., The Technology Pork Barrel.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 53–76.
10. Bar, Francois, Michael Borrus, and Richard Steinberg. 1995. Interoperability and the NII: Mapping the Debate. Information Infrastructure and Policy 4(4): 235–254.
11. Baran, Paul. 1995. Is the UHF Frequency Shortage a SelfMade Problem? Marconi Centennial Symposium, Bologna, Italy, June 23.
12. Barendt, Eric. 1995. Broadcasting Law: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13. Barnett, Steven. 1997. A Brave NewWorld: A Brave New Decision? Guardian, April 14.
14. Barnouw, Erik. 1968. A History of Broadcasting in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Bazelon, Coleman. 1999. Completing the Transition to Digital Television. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
16. Beltz, Cynthia A. 1991. High-Tech Maneuvers: Industrial Policy Lessons of HDTV. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
17. Benkler, Yochai. 1998. Communications Infrastructure Regulation and the Distribution of Control over Content. Telecommunications Policy 22(3): 183–196.
18. Bennett, Lance, and Robert M. Entman, eds. 2001.Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Berger, Suzanne. 2000. Globalization and Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 43–62.
20. Besen, Stanley M., and Leland L. Johnson. 1986. Compatibility Standards, Competition, and Innovation in the Broadcasting Industry. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
21. BIPE. 2002. Digital Switchover in Broadcasting: A BIPE Consulting Study for the European Commission. .
22. Blackman, Colin R. 1998. Convergence between Telecommunications and OtherMedia: How Should Regulation Adapt? Telecommunications Policy 22(3): 163–170.
23. Bottomley, Virginia. 2000. Maintaining the Gold Standard. In Steven Barnett et al., E-Britannia: The Communications Revolution. Luton: University of Luton Press, pp. 116–122.
24. Boyon, Michel. 2002. La t´el´evision num´erique terrestre: Rapport ´etabli `a la demande du premier ministre...
25. Briggs, Asa. 1961. The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Briggs, Asa.1985. The BBC: The First Fifty Years. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Brinkley, Joel. 1997. Defining Vision: The Battle for the Future of Television. New York: Harcourt Brace.
28. Briggs, Asa.1996. Congress Asks the FCC to Begin Lending Channels for Digital TV Broadcasts. New York Times, June 24.
29. British Broadcasting Corporation. 1992. Extending Choice: The BBC’s Role in the New Broadcasting Age. London: BBC Publications.
30. British Broadcasting Corporation.1995. Britain’s Digital Opportunity: The BBC’s Response to the Government’s Proposals for Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting. London: BBC Publications.
31. British Broadcasting Corporation.1996. Extending Choice in the Digital Era. London: BBC Publications.
32. British Broadcasting Corporation.1999. BBC Evidence to the Licence Fee Review Panel. London: author.
33. Brock, GeraldW. 1994. Telecommunication Policy for the InformationAge: FromMonopoly to Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Butler, David, and Dennis Kavanagh. 1997. The British General Election of 1997. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
35. Butler, Joy R. 1992. HDTV Demystified: History, Regulatory Options, and the Role of Telephone Companies. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 6: 155–182.
36. Cahn, Sandrine, and Daniel Schimmel. 1997. The Cultural Exception: Does It Exist in GATTandGATS Frameworks?HowDoes ItAffect or Is ItAffected by theAgreement on TRIPS? Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 15: 281–314.
37. Cain, Bruce E., John A. Ferejohn, and Morris P. Fiorina. 1984. The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament. American Political Science Review 78(1): 110–125.
38. Calvert, Randall L., Mathew D. McCubbins, and Barry R. Weingast. 1989. A Theory of Political Control and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 33(3): 588–611.
39. Cave, Martin. 1997. Regulating Digital TV in a Convergent World. Telecommunications Policy 21(7): 575–596.
40. Cave, Martin.2002. Review of Radio SpectrumManagement: An Independent Review for Department of Trade and Industry and HM Treasury. London: HMSO.
41. Cave, Martin, and Peter Williamson. 1995. The Reregulation of British Broadcasting. In Matthew Bishop, John Kay, and Colin Mayer, eds., The Regulatory Challenge. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 160–190.
42. Cawson, Alan, Kevin Morgan, Douglas Webber, Peter Holmes, and Anne Stevens. 1990. Hostile Brothers: Competition and Closure in the European Electronics Industry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
43. Cherry, Barbara A., and Johannes M. Bauer. 2002. Institutional Arrangements and Price Rebalancing: Empirical Evidence from the United States and Europe. Information Economics and Policy 14: 495–517.
44. Coase, Roland H. 1959. The FederalCommunicationsCommission. Journal of Economics 2: 1–40.
45. Cohen, Robert, and Kenneth Donow. 1989. Telecommunications Policy, High Definition Television, and U.S. Competitiveness.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
46. Collins, Richard. 1994. Broadcasting andAudiovisual Policy in the European SingleMarket. Luton: John Libbey.
47. Collins, Richard.1995. Reflections across the Atlantic: Contrasts and Complementarities in Broadcasting Policy in Canada and the European Community in the 1990s. Canadian Journal of Communication 20: 483–504.
48. Collins, Richard.1997. DigitalTelevision andConvergence in theUnitedKingdom. Telecommunications Policy 22(4–5): 383–396.
49. Collins, Richard, and Cristina Murroni. 1996.NewMedia, New Policies:Media and Communications for the Future. London: Polity Press.
50. Congressional Budget Office. 1997. Where Do We Go from Here? The FCC Auctions and the Future of Radio Spectrum Management.Washington, DC: author.
51. Consumer Electronics Association. 2001. Digital America. Arlington, VA: CEA.
52. Council of Economic Advisors. 2000. The Economic Impact of Third-GenerationWireless Technology.Washington, DC: author.
53. Cowhey, Peter F. 1990. The International Telecommunications Regime: The Political Roots of Regimes for High Technology. International Organization 44(2): 169–199.
54. Cowhey, Peter F., and Matthew D. McCubbins, eds. 1995. Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Cowie, Campbell, and Chris T.Marsden. 1999. Convergence: Navigating Bottlenecks in Digital Pay-TV. Info 1(1): 53–67.
56. Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Cox, GaryW., andMathew D.McCubbins. 2001. The Institutional Determinants of Economic Policy Outcomes. In StephanHaggard andMathewD.McCubbins, eds., Presidents, Parliaments, andPolicy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, pp. 21–63.
58. Cozens, Claire. 2002. Jowell Stands Firm on Switch-Off Date. Guardian, March 28.
59. Crandall, Robert W., and Harold Furchtgott-Roth. 1996. Cable TV: Regulation or Competition?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
60. Crane, Rhonda J. 1979. The Politics of International Standards: France and the Color TV War. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
61. Creigh-Tyte, Stephen. 2000. The Impact of a Digital License Fee on Digital TV Adoption: An Assessment. London: DCMS.
62. Crisell, Andrew. 1997. An Introductory History of British Broadcasting. New York: Routledge.
63. Culf, Andrew. 1997. The Television Revolution: Coup Jump-Starts Digital. Guardian, February 1.
64. Culture, Media, and Sport Committee. 1999. The Funding of the BBC: Third Report. London: HMSO.
65. Culture, Media, and Sport Committee.2002. Communications: Fourth Report. London: HMSO.
66. D’AndreaTyson, Laura. 1992. Who’s Bashing Whom: Trade Conflicts in High-Technology Industries.Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
67. David, Paul A. 1986. NarrowWindows, Blind Giants, and Angry Orphans: The Dynamics of Systems Rivalries and Dilemmas of Technology Policy. CEPR Working Paper 10. Stanford, CA: CEPR.
68. David, Paul A., and Mark Shurmer. 1996. Formal Standards-Setting for Global Telecommunications and Information Services: Towards an Institutional Regime Transformation? Telecommunications Policy 20(10): 789–815.
69. de Cockborne, Jean-Eric, Bernard Clements, and Adam Watson-Brown. 1999. EU Policy on Multimedia Regulation. World Digital Television Summit, Montreux, Switzerland, June.
70. DeWitt, Karen. 1995. Foe of Public Broadcasting Aid Backs Auction Financing Plan. New York Times, September 14.
71. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. 1999. The Future Funding of the BBC: Report of the Independent Review Panel. London: HMSO.
72. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport.2000. The Future Funding of the BBC: Government Response to the Third Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. London: DCMS.
73. Department of National Heritage. 1992. The Future of the BBC: A Consultation Document. London: HMSO.
74. Department of National Heritage.1994. The Future of the BBC: Serving the Nation, Competing Worldwide. London: HMSO.
75. Department of National Heritage.1995a. Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting: The Government’s Proposals. London: HMSO.
76. Department of National Heritage.1995b. Media Ownership: The Government’s Proposals. London: HMSO.
77. Department of National Heritage.1996.DigitalTerrestrial Broadcasting:AnExplanatoryGuide to theProvisions Introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1996. London: HMSO.
78. Department of Trade and Industry. 1994. Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the UK. London: HMSO.
79. Department of Trade and Industry.1996. The Regulation of Conditional Access Services forDigital Television. London: DTI.
80. Department of Trade and Industry.1998. Regulating Communications: Approaching Convergence in the Information Age. London: HMSO.
81. Department of Trade and Industry.2000. A New Future for Communications. London: HMSO.
82. Department of Trade and Industry.2002. Digital Television: The Principles for Spectrum Planning. London: DTI.
83. Derthick, Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. 1985. The Politics ofDeregulation.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
84. Digital Television Group. 2000. A Study on the Technical Impediments to Analogue Switchover. London: author.
85. Drake, William J., ed. 1995. The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies for U.S. Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press.
86. Drake, William J.,2000. The Rise and Decline of the International Telecommunications Regime. In Chris T. Marsden, ed., Regulating the Global Information Society. New York: Routledge, pp. 124–177.
87. Dupagne, Michel. 1998. High Definition Television: A Global Perspective. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
88. Dutton, William H., and Jay G. Blumler. 1988. The Faltering Development of Cable Television in Britain. International Political Science Review 9(4): 279–303.
89. Dutton, William H., and Thierry Vedel. 1992. Dynamics of Cable Television in the U.S., Britain, and France. In Jay G. Blumler, Jack M. McLeod, and Karl E. Rosengren, eds., Comparatively Speaking: Communication and Culture across Space and Time. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 70–93.
90. Eckstein, Harry, and David E. Apter, eds. 1963. Comparative Politics: A Reader. NewYork: Free Press.
91. Economides, Nicholas. 1996. The Economics of Networks. International Journal of Industrial Organization 14(6): 673–699.
92. Elstein, David. 2001. Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT): An Economic Assessment. Unpublished manuscript.
93. Elstein, David.2002. The Politics of Digital TV in the UK. Opendemocracy.net, July 17.
94. European Commission. 1991. The European Electronics and Information Technology Industry: State of Play, Issues at Stake and Proposals for Action. SEC(91) 565.
95. European Commission.1993. White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century. COM(93) 700 final.
96. European Commission.1994. Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council. Report from the High Level Group on the Information Society (“Bangemann Report”), May.
97. European Commission.1997. Green Paper on the Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors, and the Implications for Regulation. COM(97) 623.
98. European Commission.1998a. Summary of the Results of the Public Consultation on the Green Paper on the Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media, and Information Technology Sectors. SEC(98) 1284.
99. European Commission.1998b. Notice on the Application of the Competition Rules to Access Agreements in the Telecommunications Sector: Framework, Relevant Markets and Principles (“Access Notice”). Luxembourg: Official Journal of the European Communities C 265.
100. European Commission.1999. The Development of the Market for Digital Television in the European Union. COM(99) 540.
101. European Commission.2001. The Introduction of Third Generation Mobile Communications in the European Union: State of Play and the Way Forward. COM(2001) 141 final.
102. Evans, Peter. 1997. The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization. World Politics 50(1): 62–87.
103. Farrell, Joseph, and Carl Shapiro. 1992. Standard Setting in High-Definition Television. Brookings Papers: Microeconomics 1992: 1–77.
104. Frean, Alexandra. 1995. Broadcasters Clash on Plans for Digital TV. Times, September 16.
105. Froomkin, Michael A. 1997. The Internet as a Source of Regulatory Arbitrage. In Brian Kahin and Charles Nesson, eds., Borders in Cyberspace: Information Policy and the Global Information Infrastructure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 129–163.
106. Galperin, Hernan. 1999. Cultural Industries Policy in Regional Trade Agreements: The Case of NAFTA, the European Union and MERCOSUR. Media, Culture, & Society 21: 627–648.
107. Galperin, Hernan, and Franc¸ois Bar. 2002. The Regulation of Interactive TV in the US and the European Union. Federal Communications Law Journal 55(1): 61–84.
108. Garnham, Nicholas. 1990. Capitalism and Communication: Global Culture and the Economics of Information. London: Sage.
109. Geller, Henry. 1995. Reforming the U.S. Telecommunications Policymaking Process. In William J. Drake, ed., The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies for U.S. Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press, pp. 115–135.
110. Geller, Henry.1998. Public Interest Regulation in the Digital TV Era. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 16(2–3): 341–368.
111. General Accounting Office. 2002. Many Broadcasters Will Not Meet May 2002 Digital Television Deadline.Washington, DC: author.
112. Gibbons, Thomas. 1998. Regulating the Media. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
113. Gilpin, Robert. 2000. The Challenge of Global Capitalism: TheWorld Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
114. Goodman, Ellen P. 1997. Digital Television and the Allure of Auctions: The Birth and Stillbirth of DTV Legislation. Federal Communication Law Journal 49(3): 517–549.
115. Goodwin, Peter. 1998.Television under theTories: BroadcastingPolicy 1979–1997.London: BFI.
116. Gourevitch, Peter. 1986. Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
117. Graham, Andrew. 1997. Public Policy and Electronic Programme Guides: A Response to OFTEL and the Independent Television Commission. Unpublished manuscript.
118. Graham, Andrew, and Gavyn Davies. 1997. Broadcasting, Society and Policy in the Multimedia Age. Luton: John Libbey.
119. Guerrieri, Paolo, and Carlo, Milana. 1991. Technological and Trade Competition in High- Tech Products. BRIEWorking Paper 54, October.
120. Haggard, Stephan, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2001. Introduction: Political Institutions and the Determinants of Public Policy. In Stephan Haggard and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–17.
121. Hall, Peter A. 1986. Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France. New York: Oxford University Press.
122. Hall, Peter A.1997. The Role of Interests, Institutions, and Ideas in the Comparative Political Economy of the Industrialized Nations. In Mark I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 174–207.
123. Hart, Jeffrey A. 1992. Rival Capitalists: International Competitiveness in the United States, Japan, and Western Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
124. Hart, Jeffrey A., and Aseem Prakash. 1997. Strategic Trade and Investment Policies: Implications for the Studyof InternationalPolitical Economy.WorldEconomy 20(4): 457–476.
125. Hart, Jeffrey A., and John C. Thomas. 1995. European Policies toward HDTV. Communication & Strategies 20: 23–61.
126. Hart, Jeffrey A., and LauraD’Andrea Tyson. 1989.Responding to the Challenge ofHDTV. California Management Review 31(4): 132–145.
127. Hawkins, Richard. 1999. The Rise of Consortia in the Information and Communication Technology Industries:Emerging Implications forPolicy.TelecommunicationsPolicy 23(2): 159–173.
128. Hazlett, ThomasW. 1998. Assigning Property Rights to Radio SpectrumUsers:WhyDid FCC License Auctions Take 67 Years? Journal of Law and Economics 41(2): 529–575.
129. Hazlett, ThomasW.2001. The Wireless Craze, the Unlimited Bandwidth Myth, the Spectrum Auction Faux Pas, and the Punchline to Ronald Coase’s “Big Joke.” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 14(2): 335–469.
130. Hazlett, ThomasW., and Matthew L. Spitzer. 2000. Digital Television and the Quid Pro Quo. Business and Politics 2(2): 115–159.
131. Heclo, Hugh. 1988. The In-and-Outer System: A Critical Assessment. Political Science Quarterly 103(1): 37–56.
132. Hickey, Neil. 1996. What’s at Stake in the Spectrum War? Only Billions of Dollars and the Future of Television. Columbia Journalism Review 35(2): 39–44.
133. Hills, Jill, and Maria Michalis. 1997. Digital Television and Regulatory Issues: The British Case. Communication & Strategies 27: 75–101.
134. Hirst, Paul, and Grahame Thompson. 1999. Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. London: Blackwell.
135. Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang. 1996. Regulating Media: The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in Six Countries. New York: Guilford.
136. Holznagel, Bernd, and Andreas Gr¨unwald. 2000. The Introduction of Digital Television in Germany. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy 4...
137. Horwitz, Robert B. 1989. The Irony of Regulatory Reform: The Deregulation of American Telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.
138. Huber, Peter. 1997. Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm. New York: Oxford University Press.
139. Hulsink, Willem. 1999. Privatisation and Liberalisation in European Telecommunications: Comparing Britain, the Netherlands and France. New York: Routledge.
140. Hundt, Reed E. 2000. You Say YouWant a Revolution: A Story of Information Age Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
141. Ikenberry, John G. 1986. The Irony of State Strength: Comparative Responses to the Oil Shocks in the 1970s. International Organization 40(1): 105–137.
142. Independent Television Association. 1995. Response to the Government’s Proposals for the Introduction of Digital Terrestrial Television. London: author.
143. Independent Television Commission. 1993. Discussion Document on Digital Television. London: ITC.
144. Independent Television Commission.1995. Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting: ITC Response to the Government’s Proposals. London: ITC.
145. Independent Television Commission.1996. Invitation to Apply for Multiplex Service Licenses. London: ITC.
146. Independent Television Commission.2000. The Genesis Project: Final Report. London: ITC.
147. Information Infrastructure Task Force. 1993. The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action.Washington, DC: author.
148. Information Infrastructure Task Force.1995.AdvancedDigitalVideo and theNational Information Infrastructure.Washington, DC: author.
149. Information Technology Advisory Panel. 1982. Cable Systems. London: HMSO.
150. Institut de l’Audiovisual et des Telecommunications en Europe. 2000. Development of Digital Television in the European Union. Montpellier: author.
151. Jeffery, Charlie. 1998. Electoral Reform: Learning from Germany. Political Quarterly 69(3): 241–252.
152. Johnson, David R., and David Post. 1996. Law and Borders – The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 48: 1367–1402.
153. Kahin, Brian. 1997. TheU.S.National Information Infrastructure Initiative: TheMarket, the Web, and the Virtual Project. In Brian Kahin and Ernest J. Wilson IV, eds., National Information Infrastructure Initiatives:Vision and PolicyDesign.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 150–189.
154. Kaitatzi-Whitlock, Sophia. 1997. ThePrivatization ofConditionalAccess in theEuropean Union. Communications & Strategies 25: 91–122.
155. Katznelson, Ira. 1997. Structure and Configuration in Comparative Politics. In Mark I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–112.
156. Krasner, Stephen D. 1978. United States Commercial and Monetary Policy: Unraveling the Paradox of External Strength and InternalWeakness. In Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, pp. 51–87.
157. Krasner, Stephen D.1989. Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective. In James A. Caporaso, ed., The Elusive State: International and Comparative Perspectives. New York: Sage, pp. 69–96.
158. Krasner, Stephen D.1991. Global Communications andNational Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics 43(3): 336–366.
159. Krasnow, Erwin G., and Lawrence D. Longley. 1978. The Politics of Broadcast Regulation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
160. Krattenmaker, Thomas G. 1996. The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Federal Communications Law Journal 49(6): 1–49.
161. Krugman, Paul R. 1990. Rethinking International Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
162. Labaton, Stephen. 2001. A Turf Fight for the Airwaves. New York Times, March 28.
163. Larouche, Pierre. 1998. EC Competition Law and the Convergence of the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Sectors. Telecommunications Policy 22(3): 219–242.
164. Levy, David A. 1997. The Regulation ofDigitalConditionalAccess Systems:ACase Study in European Policy Making. Telecommunications Policy 21(7): 661–676.
165. Levy, David A.1999. Europe’sDigitalRevolution: BroadcastingRegulation, theEUand theNation State. New York: Routledge.
166. Levy, Brian, and Pablo T. Spiller. 1996. Regulations, Institutions, and Commitment: Comparative Studies of Telecommunications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
167. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review 65(3): 682–693.
168. London Economics. 1999. Assessing the Potential Impact of a Digital License Fee on the Take-up of Digital Television. London: author.
169. Mansell, Robin. 1999. New Media Competition and Access. New Media & Society 1(2): 155–182.
170. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review 78: 734–749.
171. Marsden, Chris T. 2000. Introduction: Information and Communications Technologies, Globalisation, and Regulation. In Chris T.Marsden, ed., Regulating the Global Information Society. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–40.
172. Marsden, Chris T., and Stefaan Verhulst. 1999. Convergence: A Framework for Discussion. In Chris T. Marsden and Stefaan Verhulst, eds., Convergence in European Digital TV Regulation. London: Blackstone Press, pp. 1–20.
173. McCallum, Lisa. 1999. EC Competition Law and Digital Pay TV. Competition Policy Newsletter 1: 4–16.
174. McChesney, Robert W. 1993. Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928–1935. New York: Oxford University Press.
175. McChesney, Robert W.2003. Theses on Media Deregulation. Media, Culture, & Society 25(1): 125–133.
176. McConnell, Bill. 2002. The Long Fight to Settle Must-Carry. Broadcasting & Cable, October 21.
177. McCubbins, Mathew D. 1985. The Legislative Design of Regulatory Structure. American Journal of Political Science 29(4): 721–748.
178. McCubbins, Mathew D., and Thomas Schwartz. 1984. Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus FireAlarms.American Journal of Political Science 28(1): 165–179.
179. McKnight, LeeW., and Russell Neuman. 1995. Technology Policy and theNational Information Infrastructure. InWilliam J. Drake, ed., TheNew Information Infrastructure: Strategies for U.S. Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press, pp. 137–154.
180. Melody, William. 1996.Toward a Framework for Designing Information Society Policies. Telecommunications Policy 20(4): 243–259.
181. Mintz, John, and Paul Farhi. 1997. TV Broadcast Spectrum Plan Is Called Giveaway. Washington Post, July 20.
182. MITCommission on Industrial Productivity. 1989. TheDecline ofUSConsumer Electronics Manufacturing: History, Hypotheses, and Remedies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
183. Moe, Terry M. 1997. The Positive Theory of Public Bureaucracy. In Dennis C. Mueller, ed., Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–480.
184. Mosco, Vincent, and Dan Schiller, eds. 2001. Continental Order? Integrating North America for Cybercapitalism. New York: Rowman & Littelfield.
185. Mulgan, Geoff J. 1991. Communication and Control: Networks and the New Economies of Communication. New York: Guilford.
186. Negrine, Ralph. 1989. Politics and the Mass Media in Britain. New York: Routledge.
187. Negrine, Ralph.1998. Television and the Press since 1945. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
188. NERA. 1999. The Impact of a Digital License Fee on the Take-up of Digital Television. London: author.
189. NERA/Smith. 1998. A Study to Estimate the Economic Impact of Government Policies towards Digital Television. London: author.
190. Neuman, Russell, Lee W. McKnight, and Richard J. Solomon. 1997. The Gordian Knot: Political Gridlock in the Information Highway. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
191. Nihoul, Paul. 1998. Competition or Regulation for Multimedia? Telecommunications Policy 22(3): 207–218.
192. Noam, Eli M. 1991. Television in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
193. Noam, Eli M.1997. Beyond Spectrum Auctions: Taking the Next Step to Open Spectrum Access. Telecommunications Policy 21(5): 461–475.
194. Noam, Eli M.2001. Interconnecting the Network of Networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
195. Noll, Roger G. 1986. The Political and Institutional Context of Communication Policy. In Marcellus S. Snow, ed., Marketplace for Telecommunications: Regulation and Deregulation in Industrialized Democracies. New York: Longman, pp. 42–65.
196. Noll, Roger G., and Frances M.Rosenbluth. 1995.Telecommunications Policy: Structure, Process, Outcomes. In Peter F. Cowhey andMathew M.McCubbins, eds., Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–175.
197. Noll, Roger G., Merton J.Peck, and John J.McGowan. 1973. EconomicAspects ofTelevision Regulation.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
198. Nora, Simon, and Alain Minc. 1980. The Computerization of Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
199. Norris, Pippa. 1997. Electoral Change in Britain since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
200. Norris, Pippa.2000. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
201. North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
202. North, Douglass C.1993. Toward a Theory of Institutional Change. In William Barnett, Melvin Hinich, and Norman Schofield, eds., Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61–69.
203. NTL. 1991. Frequency Planning for SPECTRE. London: author.
204. Office of Fair Trading. 1996. The Director General’s Review of BSkyB’s Position in the Wholesale Pay TV Market. London: OFT.
205. Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. The Big Picture: HDTV and High-Resolution Systems.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
206. Office of Technology Assessment.1995. Wireless Technologies and the National Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
207. Office of Telecommunications. 1995. Beyond the Telephone, the Television, and the PC. London: OFTEL.
208. Office of Telecommunications.1996. Conditional Access: Consultative Document on Draft OFTEL Guidelines. London: OFTEL.
209. Office of Telecommunications.1997. Submission to the ITC on Competition Issues Arising from the Award of Digital Terrestrial Television Multiplex Licenses. London: OFTEL.
210. Office of Telecommunications.1998. Conditional Access Charges for Digital Television: Statement. London: OFTEL.
211. Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
212. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1997a. Global Information Infrastructure – Global Information Society: Policy Requirements. Paris: OECD.
213. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.1997b. Webcasting and Convergence: Policy Implications. Paris: OECD.
214. Owen, Bruce M. 1999. The Internet Challenge to Television. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
215. Paulu, Burton. 1981.Television and Radio in theUnitedKingdom.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
216. Peacock Committee. 1986. Report of the Committee on the Financing of the BBC. London: HMSO.
217. Pepper, Robert, and Jonathan Levy. 1999. Convergence: Public Benefits and Policy Challenges. In Chris T. Marsden and Stefaan Verhulst, eds., Convergence in European Digital TV Regulation. London: Blackstone Press, pp. 21–36.
218. Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
219. Pool, Ithiel de Sola. 1983. Technologies of Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
220. Powe, Lucas A., Jr. 1987. American Broadcasting and the First Amendment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
221. Price, Monroe E. 2002. Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and Its Challenge to State Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
222. Prosser, Tony. 1997. Law and the Regulators. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
223. Robinson, Glen O. 1978. The Federal Communications Commission: An Essay on RegulatoryWatchdogs. Virginia Law Review 69(2): 169–262.
224. Robinson, Glen O.1998. Spectrum Property Law 101. Journal of Law and Economics 41(2): 609–625.
225. Rogers, Peter. 1995. Who Should Regulate Digital Television? Consumer Policy Review 5(5): 172–174.
226. Romer, Paul. 1990. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy 98(5): 71–102.
227. Safire, William. 1996. Stop the Giveaway. New York Times, January 4.
228. Sandholtz, Wayne. 1992. High-Tech Europe: The Politics of International Cooperation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
229. Sassen, Saskia. 1998. Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the Mobility of People and Money. New York: New Press.
230. Sauter, Wolf. 1999. Regulation for Convergence: Arguments for a Constitutional Approach. In Chris T. Marsden and Stefaan Verhulst, eds., Convergence in European Digital TV Regulation. London: Blackstone Press, pp. 65–98.
231. Scannell, Paddy, and David Cardiff. 1991. A Social History of Broadcasting, 1923–1939. Oxford: Blackwell.
232. Schlesinger, Philip. 1997. From Cultural Defence to Political Culture:Media, Politics and Collective Identity in the European Union.Media, Culture, & Society 19: 369–391.
233. Seel, Peter B. 1998. The Path from Analog HDTV to DTV in Japan. Prometheus 16(2): 209–216.
234. Servaes, Jan. 1992. “Europe 1992”: The Audiovisual Challenge. Gazette 49: 75–92.
235. Shelanski, Howard A., and Peter W. Huber. 1998. Administrative Creation of Property Rights to Radio Spectrum. Journal of Law and Economics 41(2): 581–607.
236. Sinclair, John. 1996. Culture and Trade: Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations. In Emile G. McAnany and Kenton T. Wilkinson, eds., Mass Media and Free Trade: NAFTA and the Cultural Industries. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 30–60.
237. Siune, Karen, and Olof Hult´en. 1998. What Future for Public Broadcasting? In Denis McQuail and Karen Siune, eds., Media Policy: Convergence, Concentration, Commerce. London: Sage, pp. 23–37.
238. Smith, Paul. 1999. The Politics of UK Television Policy: The Introduction ofDigital Television. International Journal ofCommunications LawandPolicy 3..
239. Snider, James H. 2001. The Paradox of News Bias: How Local Broadcasters Influence Information Policy. In Roderick P.Hart and Bartholomew H. Sparrow, eds., Politics, Discourse, and American Society: New Agendas. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 111–128.
240. Snoddy, Raymond. 1995. Broadcasters Attack Plans for Digital TV. Financial Times, September 16.
241. Spiller, Pablo T., and Ingo Vogelsang. 1996. TheUnitedKingdom: A Pacesetter in Regulatory Incentives. In Brian Levy and Pablo T. Spiller, eds., Regulations, Institutions, and Commitment: Comparative Studies of Telecommunications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–120.
242. Strange, Susan. 1996. TheRetreat of the State: TheDiffusion ofPower in theWorldEconomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
243. Straubhaar, Joseph. 1997. Distinguishing the Global, Regional, and National Levels of World Television. In Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi, Dwayne Winseck, Jim McKenna, and Oliver Boyd-Barrett, eds., Media in a Global Context: A Reader. New York: Arnold, pp. 284–298.
244. Sunstein, Cass R. 2000. Television and the Public Interest. California Law Review 88: 499–564.
245. Taylor, Paul, andNorman Ornstein. 2002.ABroadcast SpectrumFee for CampaignFinance Reform. New America Foundation Spectrum SeriesWorking Paper 4, June.
246. Thatcher, Mark. 1999. The Politics of Telecommunications: National Institutions, Convergence, and Change in Britain and France. New York: Oxford University Press.
247. Ungerer, Herbert. 2000. Access Issues under EU Regulation and Antitrust Law: The Case of Telecommunications and InternetMarkets.HarvardUniversity Program on Information Resources Policy, July.
248. Veljanovski, Cento. 1999. Competitive Regulation of Digital Pay TV. Unpublished manuscript.
249. Verhulst, Stefaan. 1998. The United Kingdom. In David Goldberg, Tony Prosser, and StefaanVerhulst, eds., Regulating the ChangingMedia:AComparative Study.Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 101–143.
250. Vogel, David. 1986. National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
251. Vogel, David 1987. Government-Industry Relations in the United States: An Overview. In Stephen Wilks and Maurice Wright, eds., Comparative Government-Industry Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 91–116.
252. Vogel, Steven K. 1996. Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
253. Waisbord, Silvio, and Nancy Morris, eds. 2001. Media and Globalization: Why the State Matters. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
254. Weaver, Kent R., and Bert A. Rockman, eds. 1993. Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in theUnited States andAbroad.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
255. Webre, Philip C. 1989. The Scope of the High-Definition Television Market and Its Implications for Competitiveness.Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
256. Weingast, Barry R., andMark J.Moran. 1983. Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91(5): 765–800.
257. Weir, Margaret. 1992. Ideas and the Politics of Bounded Innovation. In Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 188–216.
258. West, Donald. 1998.TheDawnofDigitalTelevision. Broadcasting&Cable, November11.
259. Wiley, Richard E. 1994. The Challenge of Choice. Federal Communications Law Journal 47(2): 401–404.
260. Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
261. Wilsford, David. 1994. Path Dependency or Why History Makes It Difficult but Not Impossible to Reform Health Systems in a Big Way. Journal of Public Policy 14(3): 251–283.
262. Wilson, Hubert H. 1961. Pressure Group: The Campaign for Commercial Television. London: Secker &Warburg.
263. Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.
264. Zysman, John. 1994. HowInstitutions CreateHistorically Rooted Trajectories ofGrowth. Industrial and Corporate Change 3: 243–283.