Traditionally, "independent" referred to companies producing programming independent of network ownership or control. By this standard, the autumn 2003 network primetime schedule in the United States included only one new program (Dinotopia) produced entirely independently of a network or its parent company. Of the nine new shows in ABC's 2003 season lineup, seven programs were produced by Touchstone movie studios, owned by the network's parent company, Disney.

     But some of the very strongest independent voices of television's past in the United States have joined a broad-based movement to ensure a future for independent production companies. Norman Lear, Grant Tinker, David W. Rintels, John Gay, Greg Strangis, Allan Bums, Diane English, and others responsible for some of the most pioneering programs in U.S. television history are leading figures in opposing the most recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) push to lift caps on media ownership even higher. Five horizontally and vertically integrated media conglomerates (Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and News Corporation) now own nearly 90 percent of American media outlets. Independent producers widely agree that getting a show on the air requires aligning with the networks in ways that undermine their independence. Networks now enjoy greater financial interest and greater ownership stake in independently produced programs, through perpetual license terms, repurposing rights, and backend profits. In the process, they have gained an unprecedented say in everything from programming creation to casting. In this context of consolidation, the amount of programming supplied by independent production companies has diminished to roughly 15-20 percent of all network programming, compared to 85 percent just over a decade ago. To offset the consequences of consolidation, Lear, Tinker, and the rest are calling upon the FCC to require the four major networks to purchase at least 50 percent of their prime-time programming from independent producers that are "not wholly or partially owned by a company affiliated with the producing or distributing company."

     The call by independent producers is part of a larger public protest against a controversial June 2003 ruling by the FCC which raises the limits on how much media companies can own. The new rules would allow a company in major markets (the size of New York or Los Angeles) to own up to three local television stations. Across the country, the rule would permit a single company to own stations that reach 45 percent of TV households-a ten percent increase on the previous ownership cap. A brief historical overview of media ownership deregulation and its consequences for television programming will help explain what is currently at stake for independent production companies in the United States, and why they are joining the effort to oppose this FCC ruling.

     The diminishing presence of independently produced television programming in U.S. prime time is rooted in a series of successive deregulatory moves during the last decades of the 20th century. In 1993, the financial interest and syndication rules (fin-syn) expired. These rules, established by the FCC in the 1970s when ABC, CBS, and NBC commanded 95 per­ cent of viewing households, barred the major networks from producing, owning, or syndicating their own prime-time programs. What followed were two decades in which a thriving independent production industry provided the bulk of programming for the networks. When fin-syn expired in 1993, the FCC determined that the rise of cable and the emergence of a fourth network (FOX) made such safeguards against network monopoly unnecessary. At the time, the FCC was also considering lifting regulatory obstacles to mergers among media corporations that promised to secure dominance of U.S.-based media in an emerging global media market. Even before the fin-syn rules were repealed, the deal that resulted in the acquisition of ABC by Disney was already taking shape.

     While the networks maintained that their entry into production would inspire more, not less, programming diversity, critics of the repeal were quick to warn of an ensuing consolidation among media companies that would shore up network control over the airwaves and squeeze out independent producers. For the first time, it became possible for a single parent company to own broadcast programming, created by its own movie studio, which could then be directly repurposed for one of its cable networks just days after its prime-time premiere. As the networks' increasingly preferred prime-time programming in which they held a direct financial interest, independent production companies faced new and formidable obstacles to prime-time access. With few exceptions, a spot in the network prime-time schedule has come to require independents to concede to the networks not only greater revenues, but rights to syndication as well.

     While the repeal of fin-syn in 1993 undermined independent television production companies, political and economic conditions did even more damage. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton, lifted important restrictions on ownership and control of media and opened the gates to further industry concentration. As once-discrete media operations were consolidated under a single corporate umbrella at a feverish pace, independent production companies faced new uncertainties.

     The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is widely considered the most significant piece of media ownership legislation in the recent history of American telecommunications. The 1996 act fundamentally overhauled laws governing media ownership. Until the passage of this act, no single corporation could own more than 12 television broadcast stations with a combined reach of 25 percent of the nation's television households. Pas­sage of the Telecommunications Act raised the limit to 35 percent, clearing the way for some of the biggest media mergers in history. Before passage of the act, negotiations between CBS and Westinghouse were already underway, as was a deal between Gannett and Multimedia. Its passage ushered in nothing less than a tidal wave of more than $10 billion in TV station transactions. Leading the way was Disney, with its acquisition of Capital Cities/ABC, and FOX TV with its purchase of the New World TV group. Lifting the cap on station ownership has favored the formation of many group-owned stations. This has not been beneficial to independent writers and producers, for whom consolidation means fewer outlets in which to sell their programs.

     The concerns of independent production companies have taken on new urgency since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which directed the FCC to conduct a biennial review of media ownership rules. When the FCC began this review process in September 2002, media conglomerates Viacom (owner of CBS and UPN), General Electric (owner of NBC), and News Corporation's FOX Entertainment Group were quick to file a request that the Commission use the review process as an opportunity to abolish the remaining media ownership rules. According to the conglomerates, in the age of the Internet, with so many new channels of communication, concerns about concentration of ownership are baseless.

     While the FCC did not entirely eliminate ownership caps, it did vote to raise the limit from 35 percent to 45 percent of the national television household audience. The aftermath of this decision has been marked by one of the greatest public outcries against the corporate consolidation of media in the United States. The future of independent television production is bound up in its (as yet) undetermined outcome. If the FCC decision holds, independent television production companies will have even fewer stations willing to buy their programming. However, many cling to the possibility that the federal government will overturn the new ownership rules and create conditions favorable to a revitalized arena for independent production.

     Fallout over the FCC decision has provided an opportunity for clarification of what constitutes an independent company. A brief filed with the FCC by a coalition of writers and producers defines an independent company as "one not owned or controlled by or affiliated with the same entity owning or controlling the national program service." It was much less complicated, in the early decades of television, to identify an independent production company. Today very few companies fit this definition of a "pure" independent. Many of the one-time giants who helped define the independent production company-MTM, Cannell Studios, Reeves, Rysher, New World, Lorimar, SEE, Witt-Thomas, Miller-Boyett, Orion, Republic, ITC­ have either closed down or are struggling to stay afloat. Others have been acquired by the networks.

     Independent production companies emerged during the mid- l 950s out of the struggles for control over programming between networks and sponsors. At that time, sponsors both owned and produced the majority of programs, as well as the network time slots in which their shows played. Networks found their situation improving as television slowly won over more advertisers to the medium. The possibility of multiple sponsorships curtailed the control that any one sponsor could wield over a program, and the result was increased profits and power for networks. At the same time, networks were reassessing their reliance on costly live programming (the standard fare) and began adopting new cost-saving practices of broadcasting previously filmed shows, or telefilms. The independent production companies were the primary source of tele­ films. Thus, networks enjoyed new freedom from the financial outlays for live programming and the independents enjoyed access to a promising new market for their programming beyond the movie theaters.

     Scholars have noted, however, that independence should not be confused with autonomy. As long as independent producers relied on funding from sponsors, programs remained subject to the imprint of the sponsor's interests. Few companies have had the benefit of operating entirely independently of the networks. For the capital required to develop their pilot episodes, dependents commonly bargained away some rights and financial interest to the networks in exchange for production dollars. The first independent producer to develop a show along these lines was Hal Roach, Jr., in 1953. In the 1950s, programming was also shaped by Frederick W. Ziv, whose experiences over the course of the decade help illustrate the tensions between independence and network control. Ziv left his mark in the first-run syndication market, without the help of the major networks or national sponsors, opting instead for local and regional sponsors who positioned his series on local stations, mostly in non-prime-time slots. This approach proved successful for several of Ziv's series, including The Cisco Kid (1949-56), Highway Patrol (1955-59), and Sea Hunt (1957-61).

     But by mid-decade, Ziv found the market for first­ run syndication contracting as networks began to sell their own prime-time programs that had already proven successful for syndication to local markets. These deeply discounted reruns sharply undercut independents' bids for first-run syndication, as local stations favored the less-expensive programs that already had established audiences. Between 1956 and 1964, the number of first-run syndicated programs on air with­ered from 29 to just one. As his opportunities in first­ run syndication dwindled, Ziv reversed tack and began making programs to sell to networks, including West Point (1956-57) for CBS. Although he had several successful network series, Ziv sold off his company to United Artists in 1960, citing the incursions of the networks into both the creative process and the profits: "I didn't care to become an employee of the networks."

     The sentiment expressed by Ziv is echoed today by independent producers and writers in their current struggle to oppose the FCC's new ownership rules. Letters from award-winning writers and producers of independent programming are among the hundreds of thousands of letters sent to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to protest the FCC's decision. When Norman Lear, one of the protesting voices, brought All in the Family, The Jeffersons, and Good Times to television, he did so under what he calls "the watchful eye of an FCC that was committed to keeping the playing field even, protecting against vertical integration of the major broadcasting networks that would, if they had been allowed, have forced independent companies ... to take a minority interest in the very shows we had created, giving majority ownership to the network in order to get on the air."

     The letters from Lear and others who did so much to build the independent production industry in the last decades of the 20th century speak of the "near extinction," "peril," and "jeopardy" of these companies. As Emmy Award-winning producer David Rintels de­ scribes it, independent writers and producers "now live and work in a business where a few enormously powerful companies control virtually every aspect of the work-not just who gets to write and produce the programs, but the subjects and treatment, and who can direct and who can act, who can photograph and who can write the music." Rintels is known for television dramas that engage controversial issues of politics (Washington: Behind Closed Doors, 1977), law (Fear on Trial, 1975), and war (Day One, 1989), and a long­ time critic of network television for avoiding programs that deal with controversy.

     Independent television producers are deeply familiar with the issues of ownership and control that are at the core of the FCC controversy. In her letter addressed to the senators, Diane English, the creator of Murphy Brown, recounts her struggles with CBS over everything from character to casting to comedic content. Murphy Brown reached prime time only after English battled relentlessly to retain creative authority over the program. Had the network prevailed, Murphy Brown would have been an entirely different program; the character of Murphy would have been at least twenty years younger, and played by Heather Locklear rather than Candice Bergen. CBS also suggested cutting from the script the show's defining political satire, because the humor would be lost on viewers who did not follow current events, or alternatively, might offend audiences. Of her ultimate success to preserve her creative control over Murphy, English states that "in 1988 CBS let me do it my way because I could take the show across the street if I wasn't happy  In 2003, forget it. They own it and you're stuck."

     The pending rule changes are seen by many as potentially the decisive blow to the "true" independent producer, already "disappearing from the marketplace." In comments filed by the president of the Writers' Guild of America west, Victoria Riskin called upon the FCC "to establish a safety net for the small entrepreneur producer and independent producers and writer-creators who brought American audiences such classics as The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All In the Family, and The Cosby Show." Specifically, the Guild calls upon the FCC to redress a dramatic shift that has occurred since the elimination of fin-syn rules in 1993. According to Guild data, in that decisive year, only 15 percent of new prime-time series, and 25 percent of new and returning prime-time series, were produced by the major networks in-house. Ten years later, 77 percent of new prime-time series, and 69 percent of all new and returning prime-time series were produced by the networks' own studios. To reverse the trend that has made prime-time more inaccessible to independents than ever before, the Guild entreats the FCC to direct national program services to "purchase at least 50 percent of their prime-time programming from independent producers that are not wholly or partially owned by a company affiliated with the producing or distributing company."

     No such mandate will come from the FCC alone. But independent production companies are hopeful for an outcome that favors their survival. In a historic move, just one month after the FCC decision, the House of Representatives voted 400-21 to prevent the Commission from raising ownership limits to 45 per­ cent by freezing the funding necessary for such a move. Although the House reversal brought a threat of veto from President Bush, a number of other legal moves have effectively thwarted the enactment of the new cap. In September 2003, in another move that portends well for independent production companies, the Senate invoked a rarely used Congressional Review Act veto to reject the FCC's decision.

     A growing public awareness of the consequences of media consolidation has brought positive attention to the meaning and value of independent television production companies. Independent producers and writers, who have long fought to secure a space for their programming on the airwaves, are joined by a vast coalition of interests hoping to help shape the outcome of this debate.