Contrary to other countries, there is not, in Brazil, any way to prevent cross-ownership of communication media, i.e., the possession and licensing of means of communication of different types in a single geographical area. Scarcely six private national open television networks and their 138 affiliated regional groups control 667 media outlets. Their vast field of influence is fed by 2194 VHF television stations that encompass more than 90% of the national stations. Add to these another 15 UHF stations, 122 AM radio stations, 184 FM stations, and 50 daily newspapers.

The Right to Communication: Still a Far Off Horizon

* Diogo Moysés and João Brant

 Among all the obstacles to realizing the right to communication, one stands out: the failure of the overwhelming majority in Brazilian society to recognize the right to communication as a human right, indispensable for development of both society and its members.

 As for the fight to guarantee other social rights, the idea that such issues are in fact human rights is already established in society; but the right to communication, an outgrowth of the concepts of freedom of expression and of the right to information, still lacks greater social support.

Concentration, an obstacle to freedom of expression

 As of 2004, the media with a large audience and circulation remain concentrated in the hands of a few conglomerates, or better said, in the hands of a few families. We still have no legal mechanism to combat monopoly in the telecommunications sector.

 Contrary to other countries, there is not, in Brazil, any way to prevent cross-ownership of communication media, i.e., the possession and licensing of means of communication of different types in a single geographical area. In many Brazilian states, the licensees of the audience-leading television networks (all affiliated with Rede Globo [Globo Network]), are also owners of the local major-circulation newspapers. The absence of mechanisms to prevent a monopoly on regional information constitutes one of the greatest obstacles to the development of democracy.

 This concentration can be translated into numbers: Scarcely six private national open television networks and their 138 affiliated regional groups control 667 media outlets. Their vast field of influence is fed by 2194 VHF television stations that encompass more than 90% of the national stations. Add to these another 15 UHF stations, 122 AM radio stations, 184 FM stations, and 50 daily newspapers².

 Likewise, there is no mechanism to prevent a monopoly on the television audience by a single broadcaster (as exists in the US, for example). In Brazil, Rede Globo reigns supreme, maintaining audience levels always above 50% of connected television sets³. This fact should be considered as serious, given that television remains the principal mediator in the political, social, and cultural relations of Brazilians (98% of the population between 10 and 65 years of age watches television⁴).

A false plurality

 Almost two years after the presidential elections, the Lula government still has not demonstrated any intention of establishing policies that might foster a plurality of voices in the Brazilian communication system. There is no legislation that makes the Brazilian State responsible for strengthening and making viable any small-circulation, public, and community media.

 The Federal Government’s budget to support communications continues to be distributed with the sole criteria of audience or circulation indices, which reinforces the concentration and tendency toward media monopoly. The resources invested in publicity by the federal administration come to more than R$ 563 million⁵, and today they represent a large part of the country’s communications budget. This means that the government is not only publicizing its acts, but is also financing the existence of certain media. Therefore, a policy of support for plurality is essential for a democratic communication system. The absence of these mechanisms practically eliminates the possibilities for social movements to communicate with society as a whole.

 Lack of enforcement

 There has not been, recently, any significant change in legislation relative to guaranteeing the right to communication. The principal points of the Federal Constitution have not been implemented, including the one that would prevent monopoly of the media (article 220) and the one that would create minimum requirements for programming for radio and television stations (article 221).

 This lack of enforcement also affects article 223, which establishes the principle of complementarity between the public, private, and State radio broadcasting systems. Today, most radio and television stations are controlled by private companies. In major Brazilian cities, there are five commercial television channels, and only one public or State channel operating on the VHF system.

 We continue to have a process which grants and renews licenses with minimal transparency. In Brazil, it has been only since 1997 that choices have been made by means of bidding. Before, there was a complete lack of criteria. However, we still need to establish mechanisms for public control of licensing. But, unfortunately, there is still no discussion about transparent and democratic mechanisms to contain the abuses committed by radio and television stations, there is no public control of content of the services rendered, and there is no participation by society in decision-making related to this subject.

 Two years of CCS

 The Social Communication Council (CCS) is an auxiliary group of the National Congress, created in 2002. It has a fragile instrument for democratization of communications, mainly for two reasons: because it is merely a consulting body and because its composition is defined by the governing body of Congress, which resulted in manipulation of political forces. For example, the seat for civil society is being occupied by a representative of one of the largest communications conglomerates in the country.

 However, the inauguration of CCS generated some important debates, such as that concerning the draft bill authored by Deputy Jandira Feghali, which regulates part of article 221 of the Constitution, establishing minimum percentages for distribution of cultural, artistic, and journalistic programming and of independent programming on radio and TV stations. The bill, which has been making the rounds in Congress for 13 years, received favorable backing from CCS, but is once again stuck in the Senate as the result of pressure from the television networks.

Community communication

 Likewise, there have been no changes in the previous years’ situation in the area of community communication. It is estimated that as of today there are about 15 thousand low frequency stations in operation in Brazil, the great majority of which are not legal. On one hand, legalization of community radios is progressing extremely slowly, with more than seven thousand applications awaiting analysis at the Ministry of Communications. On the other hand, Anatel (National Telecommunications Agency) continues to deal with cases of non-legal radios with excessive severity, and relies on the Federal Police to enforce seizure of equipment and closure of such stations. In 2002, at the Criminal Federal Justice alone, there were five times more cases concerning radio transmission—the majority about closure and seizure of community radio equipment—than cases concerning international drug trafficking.

 It is remarkable that instead of implementing policies aimed at stimulating appropriation by the people of the right to communication—which in the end would stimulate the creation of community radio stations—what has happened is a policy combating these vehicles, due to pressure applied by commercial media.

The dubiousness of the Federal Government

 The Federal Government’s actions are marked by a dubious posture. On one hand, the Ministry of Communications is not confronting the problem of media concentration. Today there is no clear political agenda. The government focuses on setting up the Brazilian Digital Television Service and the Digital Communications Service, which will utilize the resources of FUST (Fund for Universalization of Telecommunications Services).

 On the other hand, the Ministry of Culture put forth some important initiatives, such as support for flexibilization of intellectual property and formulation of the draft of the General Audiovisual Law, an important initiative that seeks to strengthen independent production, affirmation of cultural diversity, and creation of barriers against unrestricted exploitation of the Brazilian market by foreign corporations. However, the draft does not include regulation of the communications infrastructure. Aside from this, it maintains the logic of the regulatory agencies, with no guarantee for popular participation.

Digital inclusion and free software

 In the field of digital inclusion, Brazil is attempting to unify policies that previously were scattered. But there are no indicators that it will be possible to consolidate these initiatives at the municipal and federal levels. An important advance is the Civil House and ITI (National Information Technology Institute) policy of supporting the adoption of free software, which made official the use of this type of software in various digital inclusion policies.

International policies

 At the international level, three types of free trade agreements affect the field of communications in Brazil: intellectual property, cultural diversity, and telecommunications services. The pressure from rich countries to maintain rigid intellectual property structures is fundamental for them to export cultural products. Thus, the US government persists in refusing any proposal which makes intellectual property flexible or any mechanisms for protecting cultural diversity.

 The US government considers communication as “audio visual services,” to be treated as merchandise, and not as a universal right. The Brazilian government’s posture in international forums, especially in the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) negotiations, has been to confront the models proposed by the United States.

 At the same time, the services sector has been used many times by Brazil as a counterweight in negotiations, which weakens the possibility of combating this mercantilist conception. This is also what happens in negotiations with the European Union, where the opening up of telecommunications services has been accepted in exchange for some European concessions in the area of agriculture.

__________________

 ^* Diogo Moysés and João Brant are members of Intervozes-Brazilian Social Communication Collective

² Data furnished by Epcom-Communication Study and Research Institute. This research was published in 2002. Since then there have been transfers of affiliates, but the general picture has not changed.

³ Ibope

⁴ Marplan Brasil Instituto

⁵ Secom – Secretary of Communication of the Presidency of the Republic